Social Anxiety and Bystander Intervention in Situations Related to Sexual Assault

Home , Beat (charity)

A dissertation presented to

the faculty of

the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Bethany N. Uhrig

August 2018

This dissertation titled

Social Anxiety and Bystander Intervention in Situations Related to Sexual Assault

BETHANY N. UHRIG

has been approved for

the Department of Psychology

and the College of Arts and Sciences by

Christine A. Gidycz

Professor of Psychology

Robert Frank

Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3

Abstract

UHRIG, BETHANY N, Ph.D., August 2018, Psychology

Social Anxiety and Bystander Intervention in Situations Related to Sexual Assault

Director of Dissertation: Christine A. Gidycz

Sexual assault is a significant problem on college campuses and, recently, prevention efforts have focused on promoting bystander intervention. These programs, although promising, are in their infancy and could benefit from further research on factors related to bystander intervention in sexual assault related situations. Social anxiety is one such variable that warrants attention. Defining features of social anxiety, such as fears of evaluation and behavioral submission, intersect with theories about factors that influence bystander behavior. However, no research to date has examined the question of whether and in what circumstances social anxiety influences bystander behavior in situations related to sexual assault. The present study addresses these questions by having participants (1) report their actual behavior as a witness to sexual assault related situations and (2) respond to a vignette depicting a potential sexual assault scenario. As expected, social anxiety was negatively related to perceived opportunities to intervene and positively related to perceived barriers to intervening when given the opportunity.

However, perceived social norms about intervening and social dominance of the perpetrator interacted with social anxiety in an unexpected manner to predict bystander intervention. Specifically, some results suggested that when the perpetrator was socially dominant, likelihood of intervening trended upward as social anxiety increased. In addition, some analyses indicated that, as perceived social norms about intervening 4 became more negative, bystander intervention decreased, and this effect became stronger as fears of negative and positive evaluation decreased. Possible explanations for these findings and future directions are discussed.

Acknowledgments

I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to my dissertation committee members, Dr. Ryan Shorey, Dr. Peggy Zoccola, Dr. Chantel Weisenmuller, and Dr.

Thomas Vander Ven for the time and expertise they each contributed to my project. I would especially like to thank my mentor and dissertation chair, Dr. Christine Gidycz for her support throughout this process.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract ...... 3 Acknowledgments...... 5 List of Tables ...... 9 List of Figures ...... 10 Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 11 Factors Affecting Bystander Behavior ...... 14 Social Anxiety and Bystander Behavior ...... 16 Current Study and Hypotheses...... 19 Chapter 2: Methods ...... 21 Participants ...... 21 Instruments ...... 23 Vignettes...... 23 Questionnaires...... 24 Attention Checks...... 35 Procedures ...... 36 Chapter 3: Analyses and Results...... 38 Preliminary Analyses ...... 38 Manipulation Checks ...... 41 Hypothesis 1: Social Avoidance and Opportunity to Intervene ...... 42 Analysis 1a...... 42 Analysis 1b...... 42 Hypothesis 2: Social Anxiety and Barriers to Intervening ...... 43 Analysis 2a...... 43 Analysis 2b...... 44 Analysis 2c...... 45 Hypothesis 3: Intervention as a Function of Social Anxiety and Perpetrator Dominance ...... 45 Analysis 3a...... 46 Analysis 3b...... 47 Exploratory Analyses 3c and 3d...... 50 7

Hypothesis 4: Intervention as a Function of Fear of Negative Evaluation and Social Norms ...... 54 Analysis 4a...... 54 Analysis 4b...... 56 Hypotheses 5: Intervention as a Function of Fear of Positive Evaluation and Social Norms ...... 58 Analysis 5a...... 58 Analysis 5b...... 61 Chapter 4: Discussion ...... 64 Limitations and Future Directions ...... 70 Conclusions ...... 75 References ...... 78 Endnotes ...... 94 Appendix A: Vignettes ...... 99 Appendix B1: Demographics Questionnaire ...... 101 Appendix B2: Barriers to Sexual Assault Bystander Intervention (BSABI) ...... 103 Appendix B3: Likelihood of Intervention Scale (LIS) ...... 104 Appendix B4: Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale-Revised (BOIS) ...... 105 Appendix B5: Subjective Norms to Intervene-Likelihood of Intervention Scale (SNI- LIS) ...... 107 Appendix B6: Subjective Norms to Intervene: Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale-Revised (SNI-BOIS) ...... 108 Appendix B7: Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale- Self Report (LSAS-SR) ...... 110 Appendix B8: Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) ...... 111 Appendix B9: Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (BFNE) ...... 112 Appendix B10: Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale (FPES) ...... 113 Appendix B11: Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Perpetration (SES-SFP) ...... 114 Appendix B12: Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV) ..... 117 Appendix B13: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) . 120 Appendix B14: Drinking Due to Social Anxiety Questionnaire (DDSAQ) ...... 121 Appendix B15: Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability-Short Form (MCSDS-SF) ...... 123 Appendix B16: Manipulation Checks ...... 124 Appendix C1: Instructional Manipulation Check ...... 125 Appendix C2: Trap Questions ...... 126 8

Appendix D1: Ohio University Adult Consent Form ...... 127 Appendix D2: Debriefing Form ...... 130

List of Tables

Page

Table 1. Demographic Information of Final Sample ...... 22 Table 2. Survey Questionnaires ...... 25 Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Study Measures ...... 39 Table 4. Bivariate Correlations Among Primary Study Measures ...... 40 Table 5. Regression Analysis Examining Opportunity to Intervene as a Function of Social Anxiety ...... 43 Table 6. Regression Analysis Examining Barriers to Intervening as a Function of Social Anxiety ...... 44 Table 7. Regression Analysis Examining Barriers to Intervening as a Function of Fear of Negative Evaluation ...... 45 Table 8. Regression Analysis Examining Likelihood of Intervening as a Function of Social Interaction Anxiety and Perpetrator Social Dominance ...... 47 Table 9. Regression Analysis Examining Likelihood of Intervening as a Function of Social Anxiety/Avoidance and Perpetrator Social Dominance ...... 49 Table 10. Regression Analysis Examining Likelihood of Intervening Indirectly as a Function of Social Anxiety/Avoidance and Perpetrator Social Dominance ..... 52 Table 11. Regression Analysis Examining Likelihood of Intervening Directly as a Function of Social Anxiety/Avoidance and Perpetrator Social Dominance ..... 53 Table 12. Regression Analysis Examining Likelihood of Intervening as a Function of Perceived Social Norms and Fear of Negative Evaluation ...... 55 Table 13. Regression Analysis Examining Rates of Bystander Intervention as a Function of Perceived Social Norms and Fear of Negative Evaluation ...... 57 Table 14. Regression Analysis Examining Likelihood of Intervening as a Function of Perceived Social Norms and Fear of Positive Evaluation ...... 60 Table 15. Regression Analysis Examining Rates of Bystander Intervention as a Function of Perceived Social Norms and Fear of Positive Evaluation...... 63

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1. Likelihood of intervening as a function of social anxiety and dominance condition ...... 50 Figure 2. Rates of bystander intervention as a function of social norms and fear of negative evaluation ...... 58 Figure 3. Likelihood of intervening as a function of social norms and fear of positive evaluation ...... 61

Chapter 1: Introduction

Sexual assault is a serious and widespread public health and safety problem, typically experienced as a highly intrusive and degrading violation of one’s body. Sexual assault includes a range of forced or coerced sexual acts, attempted or completed, such as touching, kissing, and oral, vaginal, or anal penetration (Abbey, Zawacki, Buck, Clinton,

& McAuslan, 2001; Gidycz, Warkentin, Orchowski, & Edwards, 2011). Rates of sexual assault are alarmingly high on college campuses. Surveys indicate that between 11% and

28% of college women experience completed or attempted sexual assault over a 2-month period (Rich, Gidycz, Warkentin, Loh, & Weiland, 2005; Turchik, Pobst, Chau, Nigoff,

& Gidycz, 2007), and approximately 8% of college men report unwanted sexual experiences in the previous 6 months (Banyard, Ward, et al., 2007). Furthermore, between 10% and 17% of college men report perpetrating some form of sexual aggression or coercion over a 3-month period (Gidycz, Warkentin, & Orchowski, 2007;

Loh, Gidycz, Lobo, & Luthra, 2005).

High rates of sexual assault are problematic for a variety of reasons, including increased physical and mental health problems for victims (e.g., Black et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2010). These problems may also result in academic, occupational, and interpersonal difficulties, and are also associated with economic cost (Stephens &

Joubert, 2001). The problem of sexual assault on college campuses has been recognized by institutions such as the American College Health Association (2007) and the United

States Congress, which passed the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (SAVE) of 12

2013 that requires higher education institutions to provide students with primary prevention and education programs.

Although perpetrators are solely responsible for the assaults that they commit, bystanders (i.e., third party witnesses) may intervene to stop or prevent sexual assault from occurring. Individuals can also provide assistance and support to victims after sexual assault occurs. Although sexual assaults often occur in private settings, approximately 30% of sexual assaults in the United States occur in the presence of a bystander (Planty, 2002). Additionally, bystanders are often present in situations leading up to a sexual assault. For example, in one large-scale survey of college students, 55% of victims reported that they were at a party when the sexual assault occurred (Krebs,

Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2007). A majority of college students report that they have had the opportunity to help in at least one sexual assault related situation

(Hoxmeier, Flay, & Acock, 2016).

Although bystanders are frequently present during sexual assaults, they offer effective assistance only twenty to fifty percent of the time (Murphy, 2014; Planty, 2002;

Wyatt, 2016). Recent research has shown that sexual assault prevention programs with an emphasis on bystander intervention may reduce rates of violence perpetration and victimization in college populations (Coker et al., 2015; Coker et al., 2016; Gidycz,

Orchowski, & Berkowitz, 2011). Although results of these bystander intervention programs are encouraging, there remains a need for additional basic research to inform program elements. 13

It is particularly important to understand factors that might inhibit or promote effective intervention. One factor that warrants discussion is social anxiety of the bystander. Social anxiety can be defined as apprehension/fear of social or performance situations involving possible evaluation by others (American Psychiatric Association

[APA], 2013). Although social anxiety is often conceptualized as an affective state, the term can also refer to an enduring individual trait that is distributed relatively continuously throughout the population. When conceptualized as a trait, individuals with a tendency to experience frequent and intense anxiety in social situations are considered highly socially anxious, and those who tend to experience relatively infrequent and mild anxiety in these situations are considered to have low social anxiety.

Cultivating and maintaining close connections with peers is a salient task during emerging adulthood (Hawkins, Letcher, Sanson, Smart, & Toumbourou, 2009), and apprehension about peer interactions is common during this developmental period

(Blanco et al., 2008). One study found that the vast majority (87%) of college students experience physiological symptoms of anxiety in social situations at least on occasion

(Purdon, Antony, Monteiro, & Swinson, 2001). Furthermore, the prevalence of social anxiety disorder (SAD)—one of the most prevalent mental disorders in adulthood

(Kessler, Chiu, Demler, & Walters, 2005)—tends to onset in early adolescence and peak in early adulthood (Bandelow & Michaelis, 2015; Moffitt et al., 2010). At one university, approximately 26%-29% of students indicated high levels of social anxiety (i.e., qualified for probable diagnosis of SAD on the basis of an empirically determined cutoff score) on a self-report measure (Neczypor, 2015; Neczypor, unpublished data). 14

Social anxiety appears to be a salient characteristic of bystanders that may influence their choices and behavior in important ways. Theoretically, features of social anxiety such as social avoidance, fears of evaluation, and submissive tendencies may impact one’s ability to help. However, social anxiety has received very little attention as a factor in bystander helping behavior. Additionally, no study, to the author’s knowledge, has examined the effect of social anxiety on bystander behavior in sexual assault related situations. Accordingly, the present study examines the relationship between social anxiety and bystander behavior in situations related to sexual assault. It is hoped that this knowledge will help improve programs designed to increase bystander intervention within communities and, ultimately, decrease the pervasiveness of sexual assault.

Following is a brief review of factors already known to influence how bystanders respond to sexual assault related situations as well as a discussion about how components of social anxiety may shape bystander behavior.

Factors Affecting Bystander Behavior

According to models of bystander intervention, in order to intervene in a particular situation, bystanders must notice the event, interpret intervention as appropriate, take responsibility for helping, decide how to act, and, finally, choose to act

(Burn, 2009; Latané & Darley, 1970). Barriers at any one of these steps can inhibit bystander intervention and each of these steps can be influenced by several factors. Social norms—mores that define appropriate behavior and may be implicit in societies/communities—have been shown to be strong predictors of bystander behavior

(McMahon, 2015). According to social norms theory, perceptions of peer attitudes and 15 behaviors influence the individual to behave in a manner consistent with their perceived norms (see Berkowitz, 2010 for an overview). Research in the sexual assault literature has supported this premise, demonstrating that perceptions of social norms that support intervention are related to (1) increased willingness to intervene, even when controlling for personal attitudes about sexism and sexual assault (Austin, Dardis, Wilson, Gidycz, &

Berkowitz, 2015; Stein, 2007) and (2) increased rates of actual intervention behavior

(Hoxmeier, et al., 2016).

Aspects of the situation can also have a powerful influence. For example, bystanders are more likely to offer assistance when the situation promotes social pressure or responsibility for intervening, such as when the victim is a friend (Bennett & Banyard,

2016) and when no other bystanders are present to help (Fischer, Greitemeyer, Pollozek,

& Frey, 2006). However, situations in which it appears highly costly to intervene may decrease helping behavior. For example, bystanders feel less safe intervening in relatively severe assaults (Bennett & Banyard, 2016). Victim characteristics (e.g., promiscuity and level of intoxication) can also influence bystander appraisals of the victim’s worthiness and need for help (Pugh, Ningard, Ven, & Butler, 2016).

Leone, Haikalis, Parrot and DiLillo (2017) argue that alcohol intoxication can interfere with a bystander’s ability and willingness to intervene in a variety of ways, such as impairing problem solving and cognitive functioning. They argue that alcohol causes individuals to focus on perceived social norms and leaves them with fewer attentional resources to allocate toward considering the possible consequences of the event. Recent research suggests that heavy alcohol use is negatively associated with (1) likelihood of 16 intervening in sexual assault related situations and (2) prosocial attitudes about intervening in such situations, particularly among men (Leone et al., 2017).

Relatively little research has investigated personality or other individual characteristics that relate to bystander behavior. Some evidence suggests that a history of sexual victimization is associated with increased likelihood of bystander intervention, possibly mediated by increased empathy for the victim (Murphy, 2014). In contrast, men’s comfort with sexism and rape-supportive attitudes and behaviors predict less willingness to intervene (Austin et al. 2015; Stein, 2007). Other research has suggested that prosocial traits promote helping behavior (Bennett, Banyard, & Garnhart, 2014).

Banyard (2008) found that extraversion and feelings of control over social and political affairs were positively related to helpful bystander intervention, though only perceived sociopolitical control was correlated prospectively. These findings suggest that, although bystander behavior has situational influences, there may also be trait-level influences, and it appears that the literature on bystander behavior could benefit from further examination of the characteristics of individual bystanders.

Social Anxiety and Bystander Behavior

Bystander intervention programs generally seek to promote social change by changing the attitudes and behavior of individuals in the community (e.g., Gidycz,

Orchowski et al., 2011; Katz, 1995). Accordingly, much research in the field has focused on attitudes and beliefs that can be modified (e.g., Austin et al., 2015; Banyard 2008).

However, very little research has been conducted on emotions and enduring traits, perhaps because these are thought to be more difficult to change. However, knowledge of 17 such factors can help improve bystander intervention programs. Currently, bystander programs have participants consider personal and situational barriers to intervening and how they may overcome these barriers (e.g., Berkowitz, Lobo, Gidycz, Robison, Zimak,

2006). The same can be done for behavioral and emotional tendencies. For example, programs could help individuals recognize social anxiety and avoidance tendencies as potential barriers and discuss how to overcome these barriers. Furthermore, with the emergence of online programs (Salazar, Vivolo-Kantor, Hardin, & Berkowitz, 2014), material can be tailored to individual needs. For example, socially anxious individuals could complete modules specific to social anxiety.

Social anxiety and fears of evaluation may be important in determining whether an individual will provide assistance in situations related to sexual assault. Socially anxious individuals with tendencies to avoid social situations may witness fewer situations related to sexual assault. They may also experience increased barriers to intervening. Burn (2009) found that individuals were less likely to intervene if they were concerned about feeling embarrassed or awkward, and if they were concerned about the approval others. Burn labelled this phenomenon “barriers due to audience inhibition.”

Additionally, socially anxious individuals, who tend to be more behaviorally inhibited

(Mick & Telch, 1998; Ranđelović & Želeskov-Đorić, 2017; Schwartz, Snidman, and

Kagan, 1999), may be more likely to take a passive approach, relying on others to intervene. Furthermore, due to lack of confidence in social skills (Hope, Heimberg, &

Turk, 2010), they may feel unsure of how to intervene. 18

Because social anxiety promotes avoidance of social interaction (APA, 2013), maintenance of a low and non-aggressive profile (Breen & Kashdan, 2011), and submission to more dominant others (Gilbert, 2001; Weeks, Heimberg, & Heuer, 2011), highly socially anxious individuals may find it difficult to intervene or speak out against others, particularly those of relatively high social status. Although behavioral submission may help low status individuals avoid social exclusion (Trower, Gilbert, & Sherling,

1990), it is unlikely to promote bystander action, particularly when the (potential) perpetrator is socially dominant. For example, social anxiety may inhibit anger and promote submission toward a dominant perpetrator, making direct confrontation unlikely.

Fear of negative evaluation (i.e., apprehension about being evaluated unfavorably) is considered a core cognitive component of social anxiety (e.g., Jones, Briggs & Smith,

1986; Rapee & Heimberg, 1997). Given that evaluation apprehension and desire for social acceptance are thought to increase pressure to conform to social norms (Berkowitz,

2010; Berkowitz, 2011), it seems reasonable to assume that individuals with high levels of fear of negative evaluation may be particularly susceptible to perceived social norms when deciding whether to intervene. Indeed, when social pressures promote helping, concerns about evaluation tend to increase the likelihood of volunteering and charitable giving (Garcia, Weaver, Darley, & Spence, 2009). However, in sexual assault related situations where social norms may be unclear or discourage intervening, fear of negative evaluation might inhibit intervention behavior. Indeed, evaluation apprehension is frequently discussed as a possible barrier to intervention in sexual assault related situations (Burn, 2009). 19

Socially anxious individuals may find it difficult to intervene, even when perceived social norms about intervening are positive. Recent research suggests that anxiety about being evaluated favorably—fear of positive evaluation (FPE)—is an important cognitive feature of social anxiety (see Weeks & Howell, 2014, for a review).

Individuals with high fear of positive evaluation tend to fear that there will be negative social repercussions for being evaluated favorably, such as conflict with individuals of higher social status (Weeks & Howell, 2012). Thus, one can speculate that in sexual assault related situations, these individuals would prefer to remain inconspicuous, even when social norms about intervening are positive.

Current Study and Hypotheses

The present study evaluates how social anxiety, fear of negative evaluation, and fear of positive evaluation predict bystander intervention depending on perceived social norms and perpetrator dominance. The following hypotheses were tested: (1) social avoidance is negatively related to the perceived opportunity to intervene in sexual assault related situations; (2) social anxiety, fear of negative evaluation, and fear of positive evaluation are positively related to perceived barriers to intervention, particularly due to audience inhibition; (3) social anxiety of the bystander and social dominance of the perpetrator predict bystander intervention such that individuals with high social anxiety are less likely to intervene when the perpetrator is highly socially dominant than when the perpetrator is less dominant, but this effect is not as strong in individuals with low social anxiety; (4) fear of negative evaluation and perceived social norms predict bystander intervention such that individuals with high levels of fear of negative evaluation are less 20 likely to intervene when perceived social norms are unsupportive of intervention than when the norms are supportive of intervention, but this effect is not as strong for individuals with low levels of fear of negative evaluation; and (5) fear of positive evaluation and perceived social norms predict bystander intervention such that individuals with high levels of fear of positive evaluation are less likely to intervene when perceived social norms about intervening are highly positive than when they are more negative, but this effect is not as strong in individuals with low levels of fear of positive evaluation.

Chapter 2: Methods

Participants

Ohio University students (N=413) were recruited for the present study and compensated with course credit. Participants were eligible if they were 18 years of age or older. Forty-five participants were excluded from analysis1,2 for failure to pass attention checks. Specifically, participants were excluded if they (1) correctly answered less than two of the four trap questions embedded in the survey and/or (2) required five or more trials to pass an instructional manipulation check, adapted from Oppenheimer, Meyvis, and Davidenko (2009), that requires careful reading of instructions (see Attention

Checks section below). The final sample consisted of 368 participants ranging from 18-

40 years of age (M=19.32, SD=2.30). The majority of the sample (73.6%) identified as female, 25.3% identified as male, 0.5% identified as female-to-male transgender, and

0.5% identified as genderqueer/androgynous.3 The racial makeup of the sample was

86.7% White/Caucasian, 5.2% multiracial, 3.5% Black/African-American, 2.7% Asian,

1.1% Middle Eastern, and 0.8% “other”. With regards to ethnicity, 3.3% identified as

Hispanic or Latino. A notable minority (18.5%) reported having participated in a sexual assault prevention/risk reduction program.4 Table 1 presents additional demographic information. 22

Table 1.

Demographic Information of Final Sample (N=368) Variable n %

Age 18 131 35.6 19 147 39.9 20 39 10.6 21 25 6.8 22 16 4.3 23-40 10 3.2

Year in college First 237 64.4 Second 74 20.1 Third 27 7.3 Fourth 26 7.1 Fifth or above 3 0.8 Graduate student 1 0.3

Gender Female 271 73.6 Male 93 25.3 Genderqueer/Androgynous 2 0.5 FTM (female-to-male) 2 0.5 MTF (male-to-female) 0 0 Intersex 0 0

Sexual Experiences/Orientation Exclusively heterosexual 312 84.8 Mostly heterosexual 22 6.0 More heterosexual than homosexual 10 2.7 Equally heterosexual and homosexual 7 1.9 More homosexual than heterosexual 1 0.3 Mostly homosexual 6 1.6 Exclusively homosexual 6 1.6 Asexual or non-sexual 4 1.1 23

Table 1: Continued Variable n %

Race White or Caucasian 319 86.7 Multiracial 19 5.2 Black or African American 13 3.5 Asian 10 2.7 Middle Eastern 4 1.1 American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0.0 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0 0.0 Other 3 0.8

Ethnicity Not Hispanic or Latino 354 96.2 Hispanic or Latino 12 3.3 Declined to answer 2 0.5

Participation in sexual assault prevention program No 300 81.5 Yes 68 18.5

Instruments

Vignettes. Participants were asked to read a vignette, developed by Katz, Colbert, and Colangelo (2015) depicting a potential sexual assault situation at a party. The vignettes have been used in previous research to evaluate the role of victim gender (Katz et al., 2015) and race (Katz, Merrilees, & Hoxmeier, 2017) on bystander intervention.

The vignettes depicted a scene in which the participant observed a sober male leading an intoxicated female to a bedroom. Such a scenario is pertinent to real-life situations given that a majority of sexual assaults among college students occur at a party, and victims are frequently incapacitated due to alcohol intoxication (Krebs et al., 2007). For the purposes 24 of the present study, the description of the perpetrator’s size was altered from “about your size” to “of average build and stature, around 5’9” and 180 pounds.” Previous research has demonstrated that manipulating the size and stature of the perpetrator alters perceptions of dangerousness of the situation and the likelihood of intervention (Fischer et al., 2006). These vignettes were used to evaluate likelihood of intervening (see

Likelihood of Intervening Scale) and perceived social norms about intervening (see

Social Norms Questionnaires).

The vignettes were also used to manipulate perpetrator social dominance for analysis 3a-3d. Toward this aim, participants were randomly assigned to read one of two versions of the vignette. The two versions were created by inserting character descriptions of the perpetrator. These character descriptions were similar to one another, except for key words and phrases that were altered to manipulate perpetrator social dominance (see Appendix A). Results of a pilot study suggested that the character descriptions were valid manipulations of social dominance and did not differ on other dimensions that could influence bystander behavior: trustworthiness of the perpetrator and participant similarity to the perpetrator.5

Questionnaires. The questionnaires utilized in the present study are described below. Table 2 presents a summary of the questionnaires that were administered and identifies for which hypothesis (or hypotheses) each was utilized.

Table 2.

Survey Questionnaires

Measure Construct Assessed Relevant Type of Hypothesis Variable Demographics Questionnaire General participant demographic Descriptive Descriptive information analyses Manipulation Checks Social dominance of perpetrator Preliminary DV in the vignette; relevance of the analyses vignette Barriers to Sexual Assault Perceived barriers to intervening 2 DV Bystander Intervention in sexual-assault related (BSABI) situations Likelihood of Intervening Scale Likelihood of intervening in 3, 4a, 5a DV (LIS) vignette scenario Bystander Opportunity and Frequency of opportunity to 1, 4b, 5b DV Intervention Scale-Revised intervene in the past 4 months; (BOIS-R) percentage of intervention behavior when given the opportunity Social Norms-Likelihood of Perceived social norms for 4a, 5a IV Intervening Scale (SN-LIS) intervening in the vignette scenario Social Norms-Bystander Perceived social norms for 4b, 5b IV Opportunity and Intervention intervening in sexual assault Scale (SN-BOIS) related situations Liebowitz Social Anxiety Anxiety and avoidance of social 1, 3 IV Scale-Self Report (LSAS-SR) interaction and performance situations Social Interaction Anxiety Social interaction anxiety 3 IV Scale (SIAS) Brief Fear of Negative Fear of negative evaluation 4a, 4b IV Evaluation Scale (BFNES) Fear of Positive Evaluation Fear of positive evaluation 5a, 5b IV Scale (FPES) Sexual Experiences Survey- Sexual perpetration since age 14 Descriptive Descriptive Short Form Perpetration (SES- analyses SFP) Sexual Experiences Survey- Sexual victimization experiences 1, 4b, 5b Covariate Short Form Victimization since age 14 (SES-SFV)

Table 2: Continued

Measure Construct Assessed Relevant Type of Hypothesis Variable Alcohol Use Disorders Alcohol consumption patterns 3, 4a, 5a Covariate Identification Test- Consumption (AUDIT-C) Drinking Due to Social Use of alcohol to cope with 2 Covariate Anxiety Questionnaire social fears over the past 30 days (DDSAQ) Marlowe-Crowne Social Socially desirable responding to 3, 4a, 5a Covariate Desirability-Short Form survey questionnaires (MCSD-SF) Note. DV=dependent variable, IV= independent variable

Demographics Questionnaire. The demographics questionnaire (Appendix B1) asked participants to indicate the following: age, year in college, racial and ethnic identity, gender identification, and sexual orientation. Participants were also asked to indicate if they ever participated in a sexual assault prevention or risk reduction program, and if yes, how long ago they participated.

Barriers to Sexual Assault Bystander Intervention. (BSABI; Burn, 2009;

Appendix B2). The BSABI is a 16-item self-report measure of various barriers to intervening in situations that are at a high risk for sexual assault occurring. The measure consists of five subscales that measure different types of barriers bystanders may encounter (i.e., failure to notice an event, failure to identify the situation as high risk, failure to take responsibility for intervening, failure to intervene due to a skills deficit, and failure to intervene due to audience inhibition). The first “subscale” (i.e., failure to notice) consists of one item measuring distractedness. The four remaining subscales have demonstrated fair to good internal consistency (Burn, 2009). Subscale scores were 27 created by averaging participants’ responses to the items. Higher scores indicate greater perceived barriers to intervening. The subscale of primary interest in the present study was “barriers due to audience inhibition.” Internal consistency of the subscales was acceptable to excellent in the present sample: failure to identify the situation as high risk

(α=.73), failure to take responsibility (α=.85), skills deficit (α=.91), and audience inhibition (α=.84).

Likelihood of Intervening Scale. (LIS; Katz et al., 2015; Appendix B3). The LIS is a 15-item self-report measure of bystanders’ likelihood of intervening in the situations portrayed by the vignettes. Katz et al. (2015) developed the LIS (which they termed

“Intent to Help”) based on items used in previous research (Chabot, Tracy, Manning &

Poisson, 2009; Levine & Crowther, 2008). The measure consists of 12 possible intervention behaviors that a bystander could take in the situations portrayed by the vignettes. Six items assess indirect assistance (e.g., tell the host of the party), and six assess direct assistance (e.g., ask the drunk girl if she is okay). The scale also includes three items assessing inaction (e.g., stay out of it), which were reverse scored.

Participants indicate how likely they would be to do each of the 15 behaviors on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). In the present study behaviors were averaged to create a LIS average score with higher scores indicating greater self-reported propensity to intervene in various ways. Internal consistency for this measure was good

(α=.85). For the purposes of exploratory analyses, the LIS-indirect and LIS-direct subscales were created by averaging (1) the six indirect assistance items for the LIS- 28 indirect subscale (α=.65), and (2) the six direct assistance items for the LIS-direct subscale (α=.84).

Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale-Revised. (BOIS-R; Appendix

B4). The BOIS-R consists of 37 situations related to sexual assault including events perpetuating sexism or violence toward women (e.g., I heard someone talking about women in sexually degrading ways), dating/intimate partner violence (e.g., I saw someone grabbing, pushing or insulting their partner), situations with a high risk of sexual assault occurring (e.g., I saw someone who looked drunk/intoxicated go to a room with someone else at a party), sexual assault (e.g., I saw a person trying to take advantage of someone’s intoxicated state to have sex), and situations in which a person learns or suspects that an assault has occurred (e.g., A friend told me they were sexually assaulted). The scale was developed following recommendations put forth by McMahon,

Palmer, Banyard, Murphy, & Gidycz (2017) to assess frequency of opportunity to intervene and frequency of actual intervention behavior.

The situations on the BOIS-R were largely obtained from Murphy’s (2014)

Bystander Opportunity Scale, which incorporated items from Banyard et al.’s (2005)

Bystander Behavior Scale and Burn’s (2009) Bystander Intervention Behavior Scale.

Two items were removed from Murphy’s scale because they were confusing to several participants in a pilot study. Two items were added based on inspiration from other measures of bystander intervention behavior (Burn, 2009; Hoxmeier et al., 2016). Several of the items were modified for clarity and altered to apply to a wider range of possible situations. For example, in some items, the word “friend” was changed to “someone” or 29

“a person.” Additionally, some of the items were altered to be gender neutral given that both men and women can be sexually victimized, and individuals of both genders can perpetrate sexual assault.

The BOIS-R consists of two subscales for each situation: (1) opportunity to intervene and (2) intervention behavior. Items from the opportunity subscale ask participants to indicate how frequently they observed each situation in the previous four months. If participants deny having the opportunity to intervene in a particular situation in the previous four months, the survey program presents them with the next opportunity item. However, if participants endorse having the opportunity to intervene in a situation at least once, the corresponding intervention item appears on screen and participants indicate how many times they intervened or tried to help. To prevent inconsistent responding, an error message appears on the screen if participants indicate that they intervened more frequently than they observed a situation. If participants deny intervening at least once, the next opportunity item is presented on the screen. However, if they report intervening at least once, they are given the opportunity to describe how they intervened on the most recent occasion that they intervened.

A “Percent Bystander Intervention” score (PBI) was created to assess the frequency of bystander intervention behavior given opportunity to intervene. For each situation, this score was calculated by dividing self-reported intervention frequency by self-reported frequency of intervention opportunity. Opportunity items with a value of zero (i.e., the participant reported that they did not observe the situation) were excluded from calculation, to avoid creation of undefined variables (with a denominator of zero). 30

Calculated values were averaged to determine the percentage of times participants intervened when given the opportunity. Similar methods of assessing bystander intervention have been used in previous research (Murphy, 2014). The BOIS-R opportunity scale evidenced good internal consistency (α=.85) and the intervention scale evidenced fair internal consistency (α=.68)6 when missing values (i.e., participants did not endorse observing the situation) were transformed to “0.”

Social norms questionnaires. The social norms questionnaires measure participants’ perceptions of their close friends’ approval if the participant was to (1) perform each of the behaviors on the Likelihood of Intervening Scale (Social Norms-

Likelihood of Intervening Scale [SN-LIS]; Appendix B5) and (2) intervene in each of the situations on the Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale-Revised (Social Norms-

Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale [SN-BOIS]; Appendix B6). For the SN-

LIS, participants were asked, “how much do you think your good friends would disapprove or approve of you if you were to take each of the following actions?” For the

SN-BOIS, participants were asked “how much do you think your good friends would disapprove or approve of you if you were to intervene in each of the following situations?” The items were rated on a 7-point bipolar Likert-type scale ranging from 1

(totally disapprove) to 7 (totally approve) with higher scores indicating greater perceived peer approval of intervention behavior. Hoxmeier et al. (2016) used a similar method of evaluating social norms, although the specific items differed in their study. Their measure related to likelihood of intervening (Hoxmeier et al., 2016). In the present study, the SN-

LIS and SN-BOIS evidenced excellent internal consistency (α=.89 and α=.99, 31 respectively). The SN-LIS was divided into two subscales for exploratory analyses. The

SN-LIS-indirect averaged responses to the six items depicting indirect intervention and the SN-LIS-direct averaged responses to the six items depicting direct intervention

(α=.76 and α=.88 respectively).

Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self Report. (LSAS-SR; Appendix B7). The

Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS; Liebowitz, 1987) is a 24-item measure designed to assess fear and avoidance in social interaction and performance situations, with higher scores indicating greater fear and avoidance. The LSAS was originally developed to be a diagnostic tool administered by a clinician but has since been adapted for administration as a self-report instrument (e.g., Kobak et al., 1998). Baker, Heinrichs, Kim, and

Hofmann (2002) found that the self-report version (LSAS-SR) is highly correlated with the clinician-administered version and is psychometrically sound. Specifically, the

LSAS-SR was highly correlated with other measures of social anxiety and moderately correlated with measures of depression, suggesting both convergent and discriminant validity (Baker et al., 2002). In the present study, the LSAS-SR evidenced excellent internal consistency (α=.97).

Social Interaction Anxiety Scale-Straightforward items. (SIAS-S; Appendix

B8). The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS; Mattick & Clarke, 1998) is a 20-item self-report measure of anxiety in dyads and groups with higher scores indicating greater anxiety. Rodebaugh, Woods, and Heimberg (2007) and Rodebaugh et al. (2011) found that the three reverse-coded items are less valid indicators of social interaction anxiety and recommended using only the 17 straightforwardly-worded items in calculating the 32

SIAS score. This SIAS-Straightforward (i.e., SIAS-S) score, has demonstrated excellent internal consistency and construct validity in both undergraduate and clinical samples

(Rodebaugh et al., 2007). The SIAS-S evidenced excellent internal consistency (α=.94) in the present study.

Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale-Straightforward items. (BFNE-S;

Appendix B9). The Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (BFNE; Leary, 1983) is a

12-item self-report measure of fear and distress related to negative evaluation from others, with higher scores indicating greater fear. Rodebaugh et al. (2004) and Weeks et al. (2005) recommended using only the eight straightforwardly-worded items to calculate the BFNE score. This BFNE-Straightforward (i.e., BFNE-S) score, has demonstrated excellent internal consistency, factorial validity, and construct validity in undergraduate

(Rodebaugh et al., 2004) and clinical (Weeks, et al., 2005) samples. The BFNE-S evidenced excellent internal consistency in the present study (α=.96).

Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale. (FPES; Weeks, Heimberg, & Rodebaugh,

2008; Appendix B10). The FPES is a 10-item self-report measure of apprehension and distress related to positive evaluation from others, with higher scores indicating greater fear. Two reverse-coded items are included with the intention of reducing response bias

(i.e., the tendency of an individual to agree or disagree with every item) but are not used when calculating the total score. The FPES has demonstrated strong internal consistency in undergraduate (Weeks et al., 2008) and clinical samples (Fergus et al., 2009; Weeks,

Heimberg, Rodebaugh, Goldin, & Gross, 2012) as well as strong 4.5-month test-retest reliability (Weeks et al., 2012). It has also demonstrated strong convergent, discriminant 33

(Weeks, et al., 2008; Fergus et al., 2009), factorial (Weeks et al., 2008; Weeks et al.,

2012) and construct validity (Weeks et al., 2012). The FPES evidenced good internal consistency in the present study (α=.81).

Instruments to Assess Covariates. The following questionnaires were administered to be examined as possible covariates in the primary analyses. History of sexual victimization was thought to be an important variable to consider, given that it has been shown to be associated with both social anxiety (Menatti, 2016) and bystander intervention (Murphy, 2014). Similarly, alcohol is sometimes used as a method of coping with social anxiety, and interferes with bystander intervention (Leone et al., 2017).

Furthermore, given that this study relies on self-report of behaviors and beliefs that can generate moral judgement, tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner was examined as a possible covariate.

Sexual Experiences Surveys. (Koss et al., 2007; Appendices B11 and B12). The

Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Perpetration (SES-SFP) and the Sexual

Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV), measure self-reported sexual assault perpetration and victimization, respectively. Both measures consist of a total of 35 items and include seven behaviorally-specific unwanted sexual experiences (e.g., someone had oral sex with me or made me have oral sex with them) and five behaviorally specific perpetrator tactics (e.g., by threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me) for each behavior. For the victimization version, respondents indicate how frequently the experiences happened to them since age 14. For the perpetration version, respondents indicate how frequently they engaged in the behaviors since age 14. As 34 suggested by Koss et al. (2007), participants were placed into categories based on their most severe experience or act. The SES-SFV and SES-SFP evidenced convergent validity with related constructs (Johnson, Murphy, & Gidycz, 2017) and excellent internal consistency in the present sample (α=.95 and α=.98 respectively).

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption. (AUDIT-C; Appendix

B13). The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) was developed by the

Word Health Organization (WHO) as a clinical screening instrument for hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption (Saunders, Aasland, Babor, De La Fuente, & Grant, 1993).

The AUDIT covers three domains: alcohol consumption, drinking behavior, and alcohol- related problems. Bush, Kivlahan, McDonell, Fihn, and Bradley (1998) validated the use of the three consumption items (AUDIT-C) to screen for heavy drinking. The AUDIT-C self-report measure was used in the present study to quickly assess alcohol use, with higher scores indicative of greater alcohol use. The AUDIT-C evidenced good internal consistency (α=.81) in the present sample.

Drinking Due to Social Anxiety Questionnaire. (DDSAQ; Wagner, Stangier,

Heidenreich, & Schneider, 2004; Appendix B14). The DDSAQ is a 28-item self-report measure that assesses use of alcohol to relieve social fears over the previous month. Items are summed to create a total score, with higher scores indicating greater use of alcohol to manage social anxiety symptoms. Construct validity of the measure is supported by significant positive correlations with other measures of social anxiety, and discriminant validity was supported by weaker associations with a measure of depression. Principal component analysis supported the unidimensional factorial validity of the scale (Wagner 35 et al., 2004). The DDSAQ evidenced excellent internal consistency in the present study

(α=.95)

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability-Short Form. (MCSD-SF; Appendix B15).

The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) is a self- report measure that was developed to assess socially desirable responding. Items are presented in a true/false format, and higher scores indicate a greater tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner. The 13-item short version of the questionnaire was shown to be comparable to the original measure (Reynolds, 1982) and confirmatory factor analysis supported its use in undergraduate populations (Loo & Thorpe, 2000). The internal consistency was questionable in the present sample (α=.63).

Manipulation Checks. (Appendix B16). Participants rated the potential perpetrator in the vignette on levels of dominance, competitiveness, popularity, and leadership from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very). These ratings were averaged to create a social dominance composite score. Internal consistency was acceptable (α=.76). Using the same

1 to 7 scales, participants indicated how realistic and relevant they believed the situation to be as well as how risky they believed it to be for sexual assault.

Attention Checks.

Instructional Manipulation Check. (ICM; Oppenheimer et al., 2009; Appendix

C1). The ICM was designed to detect participants who are not following instructions. The

ICM has also been shown to improve reliability of the dataset, presumably by improving diligence of participants who initially fail the ICM (Oppenheimer et al., 2009). The ICM developed by Oppenheimer et al. (2009) includes a block of directions that instruct 36 participants to bypass the following question about sports participation. In the present study, the elements of the ICM were retained, but the question participants were instructed to bypass inquired about personality traits, rather than sports participation.

Embedded within the initial paragraph of instructions, were directions to ignore the following question and type “I read it,” into the text box. Following the block of instructions was a question, “Which of these personality traits best describe you and your personality? (check all that apply),” and 10 personality items. Participants who followed instructions and typed “I read it” moved on to the next portion of the survey. Participants who did not follow these instructions were presented with an error message, “incorrect response,” and asked to try again. This error message was presented until the participant passed. Participants who took five or more trials to pass (n=27) were excluded from analysis.

Trap Questions. Four trap questions (Appendix C2) were embedded into the survey to detect participants who were not reading survey items within the questionnaires. The first two trap questions instructed participants to mark a specific answer choice on a Likert scale. The third item had a factually correct true/false answer

(i.e., “I am a student at Ohio University”). Finally, a “true” response to the item, “I read the questions in this survey carefully,” was considered passing. Participants who answered fewer than two trap questions correctly (n=22) were excluded from analysis.

Procedures

Participants signed up for the study online and followed a link to the online survey. After indicating their consent to participate (see Appendix D1), participants were 37 directed to begin the survey questionnaires. Participants first completed the demographics questionnaire, Barriers to Sexual Assault Bystander Intervention Questionnaire, and the

Instructional Manipulation Check. Next, participants read one of two vignettes to which they were randomly assigned by the survey software. Those assigned to the dominant perpetrator condition (n=182) read vignettes depicting a potential sexual assault perpetrator who was designed to appear relatively socially dominant. Those in the non- dominant condition (n=186) read vignettes depicting a potential sexual assault perpetrator who was designed to appear less socially dominant than the perpetrator in the dominant perpetrator condition. Note that main effects were examined in analyses 4a and 5a by collapsing across condition.

After reading the vignettes, participants completed survey questionnaires pertaining to the vignettes: Likelihood of Intervention Scale, Social Norms to Intervene for the Likelihood of Intervention Sale, and the manipulation checks.

Finally, participants completed the remaining questionnaire measures in the following order: Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale-Revised, Social Norms to Intervene for the Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale, Social Interaction Anxiety Scale,

Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self Report, Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale,

Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale, Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Perpetration,

Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization, Alcohol Use Disorders

Identification Test-Consumption, Drinking Due to Social Anxiety Questionnaire, and

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability-Short Form. Following completion of the survey, participants were presented with a debriefing form (Appendix D2). 38

Chapter 3: Analyses and Results

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics were computed to examine sample characteristics. Table 3 presents means and standard deviations for the study variables. Previous sexual assault victimization and perpetration, alcohol use patterns, and socially desirable responding were all considered important factors that could be related to self-reported barriers to intervene, opportunity to intervene, and actual bystander intervention. Therefore, relationships between these factors and the primary dependent variables were evaluated

(see Table 4 for correlation matrix). Factors that were significantly correlated with the dependent variables were controlled for in the relevant analyses.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Study Measures

Measure Range n Mean (SD) Cronbach’s α BSABI-notice 1-7 368 3.16 (1.51) --- BSABI-identify 1-7 368 3.20 (1.61) .73 BSABI-responsibility 1-7 368 2.88 (1.03) .85 BSABI-skills deficit 1-7 368 3.72 (1.59) .91 BSABI-audience inhibition 1-7 368 2.95 (1.44) .84 LIS 1-7 368 4.95 (0.85) .85 BOIS-R-opportunity 0-4,440 368 111.21 (156.74) .78 PBI 0-100 364 30.94 (23.58) --- SN-LIS 1-7 368 5.12 (0.94) .89 SN-BOIS 1-7 368 5.36 (1.43) .99 LSAS-SR total 0-144 318 45.75 (27.43) .97 LSAS-SR-avoidance 0-72 324 20.76 (13.80) .93 SIAS-S 0-68 367 22.79 (14.68) .94 BFNE-S 8-40 365 22.21 (9.23) .96 FPES 0-72 365 27.38 (13.43) .81 SES-SFV 1-6 343 2.46 (2.05) .95 SES-SFP 1-6 313 1.28 (0.98) .98 AUDIT-C 0-12 353 5.52 (2.53) .81 DDSAQ 0-112 347 21.84 (19.67) .95 MCSD-SF 0-13 361 6.42 (2.64) .63 Notes. Range=possible range of responses given the scale of the instrument used; SD=Standard Deviation. BSABI=Barriers to Sexual Assault Bystander Intervention (notice=failure to notice subscale; identify=failure to identify the situation as high risk subscale; responsibility=failure to take responsibility subscale; skills deficit=skills deficit subscale; audience inhibition=audience inhibition subscale); LIS=Likelihood of Intervening Scale; BOIS-R-opportunity=Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale- Revised, opportunity subscale; PBI=percent bystander intervention; SN-LIS=Social Norms-Likelihood of Intervention Scale; SN-BOIS=Social Norms-Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale; LSAS-SR total= Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale- Self Report; LSAS-SR-avoidance=Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self Report- avoidance subscale; SIAS-S=Social Interaction Anxiety Scale-Straightforward; BFNE- S=Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale-Straightforward; FPES-Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale; SES-SFV=Sexual Experiences Survey- Short Form Victimization; SES-SFP= Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Perpetration; AUDIT-C=Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption; DDSAQ=Drinking Due to Social Anxiety Questionnaire; MCSD-SF=Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability-Short Form.

Table 4.

Bivariate Correlations Among Primary Study Measures

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1. BSABI-N ----

2. BSABI-I .64** ----

3. BSABI-R .43** .50** ----

4. BSABI-S .34** .45* .44** ----

5. BSABI-AI .33** .49** .56** .72** ----

6. LIS -.23** -.33** -.47** -27** -.37** ----

7. BOIS-R-O -.09 -.13* -.12* -.13* -.16** .02 ----

8. PBI -.18** -.22** -.30** -.23** -.31** .24** -.02 ----

9. SNI-LIS -.15** -.25** -.32** -.16** -.26** .65** -.05 .18** ----

10. SNI-BOIS -.09 -.17** -.24** -.24* -.23** .24** -.04 .24** .29** ----

11. LSAS-total .09 .18** .13* .21** .23** -.01 -.16** -.04 .01 -.08 ----

12. LSAS-avoid .09 .17** .13* .20** .22** -.02 -.15** -.05 -.02 -.10 .96** ----

13. SIAS-S .13* .21** .17** .24** .27** -.06 -.09 -.01 .01 -.09 .79** .74** ----

14. BFNE-S .08 .14** .10 .22** .24** -.04 -.09 .04 .01 -.03 .68** .63** .71** ----

15. FPES -.06 .05 .04 .06 .10 .09 .04 .07 .06 .01 .48** .47** .49** .57** ----

16. SES-SFV -.03 -.05 -.10 -.02 .00 .01 .12* .14** -.11* .07 .15** .17** .13* .16** .17** ----

17. SES-SFP .03 -.03 .07 .01 .08 .00 -.01 -.05 -.09 -.10 .11 .15* .07 .01 .03 .16** ----

18. AUDIT-C .07 .04 -.01 -.04 -.04 -.11* .15** .00 -.05 .10 -.24** -.25** -.25** -.11* -.13* .06 -.01 ----

19. DDSAQ .08 .13* .16** .13* .12* -.07 .03 -.02 .01 .03 .27** .23** .31** .33** .25** .25** .14* .37** ----

20. MCSD-SF -.06 -.08 -.09 -.07 -.07 .13* -.09 .04 .08 -.03 -.26** -.25** .30** -.31** -.25** -.09 -.10 -.10 -.27**

Notes. BSABI=Barriers to Sexual Assault Bystander Intervention (N=failure to notice; I=failure to identify the situation as high risk; R=failure to take responsibility; S=skills deficit; AI=audience inhibition); LIS=Likelihood of Intervening Scale; BOIS-R-O=Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale- Revised, opportunity subscale; PBI=percent bystander intervention; SN-LIS=Social Norms-Likelihood of Intervention Scale; SN-BOIS=Social Norms- Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale; LSAS-total= Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self Report; LSAS-avoid=Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale- Self Report-avoidance subscale; SIAS-S=Social Interaction Anxiety Scale-Straightforward; BFNE-S=Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale- Straightforward; FPES-Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale; SES-SFV=Sexual Experiences Survey- Short Form Victimization; SES-SFP= Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Perpetration; AUDIT-C=Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption; DDSAQ=Drinking Due to Social Anxiety Questionnaire; MCSD-SF=Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability-Short Form. *p<.05, **p<.01. 41

Observation of each situation on the Bystander Opportunity and Intervention

Scale-Revised more than once per day in the previous four months was deemed highly improbable. Therefore, prior to analyzing the primary hypotheses, responses greater than

120 (n=49 across all 37 items) were transformed to a value of 120.7 The transformed values were used to examine opportunity to intervene. Values were not transformed when calculating Percent Bystander Intervention, because doing so would artificially increase percentage scores.

As described previously, participants read one or two versions of the vignette scenario depicting either a non-dominant or dominant perpetrator. The social dominance manipulations were relevant to hypothesis 3 and thus the data was analyzed by condition for analysis 3a-3d. All other analyses were collapsed across condition.

Manipulation Checks

One-sample t-tests were used to evaluate how realistic, relevant, and risky for sexual assault participants viewed the scenario in the vignettes. Average ratings for each item were significantly greater than the neutral midpoint (of 4), suggesting that the scenario was considered realistic (M=5.32, SD=1.54), t(367)=16.52, p<.001, d=1.21, relevant (M=5.44, SD=1.53), t(367)=17.99, p<.001, d=1.33, and risky for sexual assault

(M=6.07, SD=1.20), t(367)=32.97, p<.001, d=2.45. An independent samples t-test confirmed that manipulations of social dominance were successful. Specifically, participants in the dominant perpetrator condition rated the potential perpetrator in the vignette as more socially dominant (M=5.47, SD=1.27) than those in the non-dominant condition (M=4.11, SD=1.10), t(366)=11.00, p<.001, d=1.14. 42

Hypothesis 1: Social Avoidance and Opportunity to Intervene

Analysis 1a. To evaluate the relationship between social avoidance and opportunity to intervene, a Pearson correlation was conducted between the Liebowitz

Social Anxiety Scale-Self Report avoidance subscale score and the Bystander

Opportunity and Intervention Scale-Revised opportunity scale. The analysis revealed a modest negative correlation r(322) = -.15, p = .008.

Analysis 1b. To further examine this relationship, a regression analysis was conducted with opportunity to intervene as the criterion. The Alcohol Use Disorders

Identification Test-Consumption and the Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form

Victimization were entered as covariates and the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale- avoidance subscale was entered as the main predictor variable. The overall model explained significant variance in opportunity to intervene, F(3, 286)=4.89, p=.002,

R2=.05. In the presence of the other variables, tendency to consume more alcohol was associated with increased opportunity to intervene, p=.026, though history of sexual victimization was not, p=.10. Even when controlling for alcohol use patterns and previous victimization, social avoidance significantly predicted opportunity to intervene, p=.035. Specifically, as social avoidance increased, opportunities to intervene decreased

(see Table 5).

Table 5.

Summary of Linear Regression Analysis Examining Opportunity to Intervene as a Function of Social Anxiety B SE B β R2 ∆R2

Covariates .03* --- SES-SFV 5.65 4.68 .07 AUDIT-C 10.80 3.76 .17*

Block 1 .05* .02* SES-SFV 7.77 4.75 .10 AUDIT-C 8.68 3.87 .13* LSAS-avoid -1.55 .73 -.13*

Notes. Dependent variable=Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale-opportunity subscale. SES-SFV=Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization; AUDIT- C=Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption; LSAS-avoid=Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-avoidance subscale. ** p < .01, * p < .05, †p<.10.

Hypothesis 2: Social Anxiety and Barriers to Intervening

Analysis 2a. To evaluate the hypothesis that social anxiety, fear of negative evaluation, and fear of positive evaluation would be positively related to barriers to intervening, Pearson correlational analyses were conducted between the Social

Interaction Anxiety Scale-Straightforward scores, the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation

Scale-Straightforward scores, the Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale, and the five subscales of the Barriers to Sexual Assault Bystander Intervention (BSABI). The analysis revealed that social anxiety (as measured by the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale-

Straightforward) was positively correlated with failure to notice, r(365)=.13, p=.011, failure to identify the situation as high-risk, r(365)=.21, p<.001, failure to take intervention responsibility, r(365)=.17, p=.001, skills deficit, r(365)=.24, p<.001, and 44 audience inhibition, r(365)=.27, p<.001, subscales. Fear of negative evaluation was also positively correlated with failure to identify the situation as high risk, r(363)=.14, p=.006, skills deficit, r(363)=.22, p<.001, and audience inhibition, r(363)=.24, p<.001. None of the subscales were significantly related to fear of positive evaluation, all ps>.05.

Analysis 2b. To further examine the relationships between social anxiety and barriers due to audience inhibition, a regression analysis was conducted. The audience inhibition subscale of the Barriers to Sexual Assault Bystander Intervention was entered as the criterion variable and the Drinking Due to Social Anxiety Questionnaire was entered as a covariate. Social Interaction Anxiety Scale-Straightforward was entered as the main predictor. The model was significant, F(2, 344)=14.75, p<.001, R2=.08, and social anxiety was a significant predictor of perceived barriers due to audience inhibition, p<.001 (see Table 6). However, in this model, drinking due to social anxiety was not a significant predictor, p=.49.

Table 6.

Summary of Linear Regression Analysis Examining Barriers to Intervening as a Function of Social Anxiety B SE B β R2

.08** DDSAQ .00 .00 .04 SIAS-S .03 .01 .27**

Notes. Dependent variable= Barriers to Sexual Assault Bystander Intervention- audience inhibition subscale. DDSAQ= Drinking Due to Social Anxiety Questionnaire; SIAS- S=Social Interaction Anxiety-Straightforward Scale. ** p < .01, * p < .05, †p<.10. 45

Analysis 2c. To further examine the relationship between fear of negative evaluation and barriers to intervening, a regression analysis was conducted. The audience inhibition subscale of the Barriers to Sexual Assault Bystander Intervention was entered as the criterion variable and the Drinking Due to Social Anxiety Questionnaire was entered as a covariate. Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale-Straightforward score was entered as the main predictor. The model was significant, F(2, 343)=10.74, p<.001,

R2=.06, and fear of negative evaluation was a significant predictor of perceived barriers due to audience inhibition, p<.001 (see Table 7). However, in this model, drinking due to social anxiety was not a significant predictor, p=.42.

Table 7.

Summary of Linear Regression Analysis Examining Barriers to Intervening as a Function of Fear of Negative Evaluation B SE B β R2

.06** DDSAQ .00 .00 .05 BFNE-S .04 .01 .22**

Notes. Dependent variable= Barriers to Sexual Assault Bystander Intervention- audience inhibition subscale. DDSAQ= Drinking Due to Social Anxiety Questionnaire; BFNE-S= Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale-Straightforward. ** p < .01, * p < .05, †p<.10.

Hypothesis 3: Intervention as a Function of Social Anxiety and Perpetrator

Dominance

Two hierarchical linear regression analyses were performed to test whether social anxiety interacted with dominance condition to predict likelihood of bystander 46 intervention. The first regression analysis used Social Interaction Anxiety-

Straightforward scores as the measure of social anxiety, as this has been a widely used and well validated measure of social interaction anxiety. The second regression analysis used the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self-Report as the dependent variable. Although the self-report version of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale has been less widely used, it is a more comprehensive measure of social anxiety given that it measures both anxiety and avoidance in both social interaction and performance situations.

Analysis 3a. In the first regression analysis, the Marlowe-Crowne Social

Desirability-Short Form and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption were entered as covariates. Social Interaction Anxiety Scale-Straightforward scores and condition (i.e., dominant perpetrator=1 and non-dominant=0) were entered into the first step and their interaction term was entered into the second step as the main predictor variable. Likelihood of Intervening Scale was entered as the criterion variable. The first block predicted reported likelihood of intervening, F(4, 342)=2.59, p=.037, R2=.03. The model remained significant when the interaction term was added, F(5, 341)=2.40, p=.037, R2=.03. However, none of the covariates or individual predictor variables, including the interaction term, accounted for significant variance in self-reported likelihood of intervening, all ps>.05 (see Table 8). 47

Table 8.

Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Examining Likelihood of Intervening as a Function of Social Interaction Anxiety and Perpetrator Social Dominance B SE B β R2 ∆R2

Covariates .03* --- MCSD-SF .04 .02 .13* AUDIT-C -.03 .02 -.09

Block 1 .03* .003 MCSD-SF .04 .02 .11† AUDIT-C -.04 .02 -.11† SIAS-S .00 .00 -.06 Condition .03 .09 .02

Block 2 .03* .005 MCSD-SF .04 .02 .11† AUDIT-C -.04 .02 -.11† SIAS-S -.02 .01 -.26 Condition -.15 .17 -.09 SIAS-S*Condition .01 .01 .24

Notes. Dependent variable=Likelihood of Intervening Scale. MCSD-SF=Marlowe- Crowne Social Desirability-Short Form; AUDIT-C=Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption; SIAS-S=Social Interaction Anxiety Scale-Straightforward; Condition=Dominance Condition (dominant vs. non-dominant); SIAS-S*Condition= interaction between SIAS-S and condition. ** p < .01, * p < .05, †p<.10.

Analysis 3b. In the second regression analysis, the Marlowe-Crowne Social

Desirability-Short Form and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption were entered as covariates. The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self-Report and condition (i.e., dominant perpetrator vs. non-dominant) were entered into the first step and their interaction term was entered into the second step as the main predictor variable.

Likelihood of Intervening Scale scores was entered as the criterion variable. The first 48 block predicted reported likelihood of intervening, F(4, 298)=3.06, p=.017, R2=.04. The model remained significant when the interaction term was added, F(5, 297)=3.48, p=.004, R2=.04, though adding the interaction term did not explain additional variance,

∆R2=.01.

In the presence of the other variables, social desirability explained significant variance in self-reported likelihood of intervening. Specifically, as socially desirable responding increased, self-reported likelihood of intervening also increased, p=.006.

Alcohol use was not a significant covariate, p=.086. When controlling for the other variables and covariates, social anxiety and avoidance (as measured by the Liebowitz

Social Anxiety Scale-Self Report) was a significant predictor of likelihood of intervening, p=.04, such that as social anxiety increased, likelihood of intervening decreased.

Dominance condition was not a significant predictor, p=.11; however, the interaction between dominance condition and social anxiety was significant, p=.03 (see Table 9).

Specifically, in the non-dominant condition, there was little change in likelihood of intervening as social anxiety increased. However, in the dominant perpetrator condition, likelihood of intervening trended upward as social anxiety increased (see Figure 1).

Table 9.

Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Examining Likelihood of Intervening as a Function of Social Anxiety and Avoidance and Perpetrator Social Dominance B SE B β R2 ∆R2

Covariates .04** --- MCSD-SF .05 .02 .16** AUDIT-C -.03 .02 -.10†

Block 1 .04* .001 MCSD-SF .05 .02 .17** AUDIT-C -.03 .02 -.10† LSAS .00 .00 .01 Condition .06 .10 .03

Block 2 .06** .016* MCSD-SF .05 .02 .16** AUDIT-C -.03 .02 -.10† LSAS -.01 .01 -.36* Condition -.30 .18 -.18 LSAS*Condition .01 .00 .45*

Notes. Dependent variable=Likelihood of Intervening Scale. MCSD-SF=Marlowe- Crowne Social Desirability-Short Form; AUDIT-C=Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption; LSAS=Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale; Condition=Dominance Condition (dominant vs. non-dominant); LSAS*Condition= interaction term between LSAS and condition. ** p < .01, * p < .05, †p<.10. 50

7 High 6

3 Non-Dominant Condition Likelihood Likelihood of Intervening 2 Dominant Condition

Low 1 0 24 48 72 96 120 144 Low High Social Anxiety Figure 1. Likelihood of intervening as a function of social anxiety and dominance condition Notes. Social anxiety=Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self Report (LSAS). The slopes are based on values predicted by the regression model. The slopes are significantly different from each other, p=.003. The slopes for the dominant, p=.098, and non- dominant, p=.17, conditions were not significantly different from zero.

Exploratory Analyses 3c and 3d. Given the unexpected findings in analysis 3b, post-hoc analyses were conducted to determine if a similar pattern of results would be revealed when evaluating the likelihood of intervening in (1) an indirect manner, and (2) a direct manner. In both analyses, the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability-Short Form and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption were entered as covariates.

The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self-Report and condition (i.e., dominant perpetrator vs. non-dominant) were entered into the first step and their interaction term was entered into the second step as the main predictor variable. In analysis 3c, Likelihood 51 of Intervening Scale-indirect scores were entered as the criterion variable. In analysis 3d,

Likelihood of Intervening Scale-direct scores was entered as the criterion variable.

Analysis 3c. The first block did not predict reported likelihood of indirect intervention, F(4, 298)=1.80, p=.13, R2=.02. The model was significant when the interaction term was added, F(5, 297)=2.63, p=.024, R2=.04. Socially desirable responding, social anxiety, and dominance condition were not significant predictors of indirect intervention, all ps>.05. The interaction between dominance condition and social anxiety was a statistically significant predictor of indirect intervention, p=.017 (see Table

10). Specifically, in the non-dominant condition, there was little change in likelihood of intervening as social anxiety increased. However, in the dominant perpetrator condition, likelihood of intervening in an indirect fashion trended upward as social anxiety increased.

Table 10.

Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Examining Likelihood of Intervening Indirectly as a Function of Social Anxiety and Avoidance and Perpetrator Social Dominance B SE B β R2 ∆R2

Covariates .02† --- MCSD-SF .04 .02 .10† AUDIT-C -.03 .02 -.09

Block 1 .02 .005 MCSD-SF .04 .02 .12* AUDIT-C -.03 .02 -.07 LSAS .00 .00 .07 Condition .06 .11 .03

Block 2 .04* .019* MCSD-SF .04 .02 .12† AUDIT-C -.03 .02 -.07 LSAS -.01 .01 -.34† Condition -.37 .21 -.20† LSAS*Condition .01 .00 .49*

Notes. Dependent variable=Likelihood of Intervening Scale-Indirect. MCSD- SF=Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability-Short Form; AUDIT-C=Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption; LSAS=Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale; Condition=Dominance Condition (dominant vs. non-dominant); LSAS*Condition= interaction term between LSAS and condition. ** p < .01, * p < .05, †p<.10.

Analysis 3d. The first block did not predict reported likelihood of directly intervening, F(4, 298)=1.47, p=.21, R2=.02. Adding the interaction term did not improve model fit, p=.99, and the model remained non-significant, F(5, 297)=1.44, p=.21, R2=.02.

Socially desirable responding did explain significant variance in self-reported likelihood of intervening, such that as socially desirable responding increased, self-reported likelihood of intervening directly also increased, p=.045. However, alcohol consumption 53 was not a significant covariate and none of the individual predictors significantly predicted likelihood of intervening in a direct fashion, all ps>.05 (see Table 11).

Table 11.

Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Examining Likelihood of Intervening Directly as a Function of Social Anxiety and Avoidance and Perpetrator Social Dominance B SE B β R2 ∆R2

Covariates .02† --- MCSD-SF .05 .02 .12* AUDIT-C -.03 .03 -.06

Block 1 .02 .00 MCSD-SF .05 .03 .13* AUDIT-C -.03 .03 -.06 LSAS .00 .00 .01 Condition .02 .13 .01

Block 2 .02 .00 MCSD-SF .05 .03 .12* AUDIT-C -.03 .03 -.06 LSAS -.01 .01 -.19 Condition -.23 .25 -.10 LSAS*Condition .01 .01 .24

Notes. Dependent variable=Likelihood of Intervening Scale-Direct. MCSD=Marlowe- Crowne Social Desirability-Short Form; AUDIT-C=Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption; LSAS=Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale; Condition=Dominance Condition (dominant vs. non-dominant); LSAS*Condition= interaction term between LSAS and condition. ** p < .01, * p < .05, †p<.10. 54

Hypothesis 4: Intervention as a Function of Fear of Negative Evaluation and Social

Norms

Two hierarchical linear regression analyses were performed to determine whether fears of negative evaluation interacted with perceived social norms about intervening to predict bystander intervention behavior.

Analysis 4a. In the first regression analysis, self-reported likelihood of intervening in the vignette scenario (Likelihood of Intervening Scale) was used as the criterion variable. Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale, Marlowe-Crowne Social

Desirability-Short Form scores and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-

Consumption were entered as covariates. Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale-

Straightforward scores and Social Norms-Likelihood of Intervention Scale were entered into the first step and their interaction term was entered into the second step as the main predictor variable.

The first block significantly predicted likelihood of intervening F(5, 339)=52.47, p<.001, R2=.44, and the model remained significant when the interaction term was added

F(6, 338)=43.64, p<.001, R2=.44, though adding the interaction term did not explain any additional variance, ∆R2=.00. In the presence of the other variables, fear of positive evaluation predicted likelihood of intervening, p=.025, such that as fear of positive evaluation increased, likelihood of intervening also increased. However, the other covariates (social desirability and alcohol consumption) were not significant, both ps>.05. Perceived social norms about intervening accounted for significant variance in likelihood of intervening scores, p<.001, such that as perceived social norms about 55 intervening became more positive, likelihood of intervening also increased. However, the other individual predictors (fear of negative evaluation and the interaction term) were not significant, both ps>.05 (see Table 12).

Table 12.

Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Examining Likelihood of Intervening as a Function of Perceived Social Norms and Fear of Negative Evaluation B SE B β R2 ∆R2

Covariates .04* --- MCSD-SF .05 .02 .15* AUDIT-C -.03 .02 -.08 FPES .01 .00 .10†

Block 1 .44** .40** MCSD-SF .02 .01 .07 AUDIT-C -.02 .01 -.07 FPES .01 .00 .11* BFNE-S -.01 .01 -.11* SNI-LIS .56 .04 .63**

Block 2 .44** .00 MCSD-SF .02 .01 .07 AUDIT-C -.02 .01 -.07 FPES .01 .00 -.11* BFNE-S .00 .02 -.03 SNI-LIS .60 .10 .67** BFNE-S*SNI-LIS .00 .00 -.09

Notes. Dependent variable=Likelihood of Intervening Scale. MCSD-SF=Marlowe- Crowne Social Desirability-Short Form; AUDIT-C=Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption; FPES=Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale; BFNE-S=Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation-Straightforward; SNI-LIS= Social Norms-Likelihood of Intervening Scale; BFNE-S*SNI-LIS=Interaction between BFNE-S and SNI-LIS. ** p < .01, * p < .05, †p<.10.

Analysis 4b. In the second regression analysis, actual intervention behavior in the previous 4 months (i.e., Percent Bystander Intervention scores) was used as the criterion variable. Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization and Fear of Positive

Evaluation Scale scores were entered as covariates. Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation

Scale -Straightforward scores and Social Norms-Bystander Opportunity and Intervention

Scale-Revised were entered into the first step and their interaction term was entered into the second step as the main predictor variable.

The first block predicted intervention behavior, F(4, 331)=5.81, p<.001, R2=.07, and the model remained significant when the interaction term was added, F(5, 330)=5.49, p<.001, R2=.08. History of sexual victimization and fear of positive evaluation were not significant covariates in this model, both ps>.05. Fear of negative evaluation did not predict bystander intervention behavior, p=.06. Perceived social norms about intervening

(i.e., Social Norms-Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale-Revised) was a significant predictor of bystander intervention, p=.001, such that as perceived social norms about intervening became more positive, intervention behavior also increased. The interaction between fear of negative evaluation and perceived social norms was also a significant predictor of bystander intervention, p=.046 (see Table 13). As fear of negative evaluation decreased, perceived social norms had a greater impact on bystander intervention behavior. Specifically, as perceived social norms about intervening became more negative, actual self-reported bystander intervention decreased, and this effect became stronger as fear of negative evaluation decreased (see Figure 2).

Table 13.

Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Examining Rates of Bystander Intervention as a Function of Perceived Social Norms and Fear of Negative Evaluation B SE B β R2 ∆R2

Covariates .02* --- SES-SFV 1.48 .63 .13* FPES .09 .10 -.05

Block 1 .07** .05** SES-SFV 1.31 .62 .12* FPES .08 .11 .05 BFNE-S -.01 .17 -.01 SNI-BOIS 3.49 .88 .21**

Block 2 .08** .01* SES-SFV 1.20 .62 .11† FPES .08 .11 .05 BFNE-S 1.07 .57 .42† SNI-BOIS 8.02 2.43 .49** BFNE-S*SNI-BOIS -.20 .10 .51*

Notes. Dependent variable=Percent Bystander Intervention. SES-SFV=Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization; FPES=Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale; BFNE-S=Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation-Straightforward; SNI-BOIS= Social Norms- Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale; BFNE-S*SNI-BOIS=Interaction between BFNE-S and SNI-BOIS. ** p < .01, * p < .05, †p<.10.

40 35 30 25 20 Low FNE 15 Mean FNE 10 High FNE

Percent Bystander Intervention Bystander Percent 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Negative Positive Perceived Social Norms

Figure 2. Rates of bystander intervention as a function of social norms and fear of negative evaluation Notes. Perceived social norms=Social Norms-Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale. The lines represent different levels of fear of negative evaluation (FNE): low FNE (i.e., 1 standard deviation below the mean BFNE-S score), mean FNE (i.e., mean BFNE- S score) and high FNE (1 standard deviation above the mean BFNE-S score). The slopes are based on values predicted by the regression model. The slopes for average and high FNE did not differ significantly from zero, ps>.05. Low FNE evidenced a trend toward increasing intervention with increasingly positive social norms, p=.052.

Hypotheses 5: Intervention as a Function of Fear of Positive Evaluation and Social

Norms

Two hierarchical linear regression analyses were performed to determine whether fears of positive evaluation interacted with perceived social norms about intervening to predict bystander intervention behavior.

Analysis 5a. In the first regression, self-reported likelihood of intervening in the vignette scenario (Likelihood of Intervening Scale) was used as the criterion variable. 59

Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale-Straightforward scores, Marlowe-Crowne Social

Desirability-Short Form scores and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-

Consumption were entered as covariates. Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale and Social

Norms-Likelihood of Intervention Scale were entered into the first step and their interaction term was entered into the second step as the main predictor variable.

The first block significantly predicted likelihood of intervening F(5, 339)=52.47, p<.001, R2=.43, and the model remained significant when the interaction term was added

F(6, 338)=46.77, p<.001, R2=.45. In the presence of the other variables, fear of negative evaluation predicted likelihood of intervening, such that, as fears of negative evaluation increased, likelihood of intervening decreased, p=.034. The other covariates (i.e., socially desirable responding and alcohol consumption) were not significant predictors of likelihood of intervening, both ps>.05. Controlling for the other variables, perceived social norms about intervening accounted for significant variance in bystander intervention, p<.001, such that as perceived social norms became more positive, self- reported likelihood of intervening increased. Fear of positive evaluation was also a significant predictor, p<.001, such that as fear of positive evaluation increased, likelihood of intervention also increased. Finally, the interaction between fear of positive evaluation and perceived social norms about intervening accounted for significant variance in self- reported likelihood of intervening, p=.001 (see Table 14). As fear of positive evaluation decreased, perceived social norms had a greater impact on likelihood of intervention.

Specifically, as perceived social norms about intervening became more negative, 60 likelihood of intervention decreased, and this effect became stronger as fear of positive evaluation decreased (see Figure 3).

Table 14.

Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Examining Likelihood of Intervening as a Function of Perceived Social Norms and Fear of Positive Evaluation B SE B β R2 ∆R2

Covariates .03* --- MCSD-SF .04 .02 .15* AUDIT-C -.03 .02 -.10† BFNE-S .00 .01 .03

Block 1 .44** .41** MCSD-SF .02 .01 .07 AUDIT-C -.02 .01 -.07 BFNE-S -.01 .01 -.11* FPES .01 .00 .11* SNI-LIS .56 .04 .63**

Block 2 .45** .02** MCSD-SF .02 .01 .07 AUDIT-C -.02 .01 -.07† BFNE-S -.01 .01 -.11* FPES .05 .01 .81** SNI-LIS .80 .08 .89** FPES*SNI-LIS -.01 .00 -.77**

Notes. Dependent variable=Likelihood of Intervening Scale. MCSD-SF=Marlowe- Crowne Social Desirability-Short Form; AUDIT-C=Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption; BFNE-S=Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation-Straightforward; FPES=Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale; SNI-LIS= Social Norms-Likelihood of Intervening Scale; FPES*SNI-LIS=Interaction between FPES and SNI-LIS. ** p < .01, * p < .05, †p<.10.

7 High 6

4 Low FPE

3 Mean FPE

Likelihood Likelihood of Intervening 2 High FPE

Low 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Negative Positive Perceived Social Norms

Figure 3. Likelihood of intervening as a function of social norms and fear of positive evaluation Notes. Perceived social norms=Social Norms-Likelihood of Intervening Scale. The lines represent different levels of fear of positive evaluation (FPE): low FPE (i.e., 1 standard deviation below the mean FPES score), mean FPE (i.e., mean FPES score) and high FPE (1 standard deviation above the mean FPES score). The slopes are based on values predicted by the regression model. The slopes for average and high FPE did not differ significantly from zero, ps>.05. The slope for low FPE was significantly different from zero, p<.001.

Analysis 5b. In the second regression analysis, actual intervention behavior in the previous 4 months (i.e., Percent Bystander Intervention scores) was entered as the criterion variable. Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization and Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation-Straightforward scale scores were entered as covariates. The Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale and Social Norms-Bystander Opportunity and Intervention

Scale-Revised were entered into the first step and their interaction term was entered into 62 the second step as the main predictor variable. The first block accounted for significant variance in self-reported intervention, F(4, 331)=5.81, p<.001, R2=.05 and the model remained significant when the interaction term was added F(5, 330)=5.31, p<.001,

R2=.06. History of sexual victimization was a significant covariate such that as history of sexual victimization increased, bystander intervention also increased p=.043. Fear of negative evaluation was not a significant covariate, p=.98. In the presence of the other predictors, perceived social norms about intervening accounted for significant variance in bystander intervention, p=.001, such that as perceived social norms became more positive, intervention behavior increased. The other predictor variables (i.e., fear of positive evaluation and the interaction term), were not statistically significant, both ps>.05 (see Table 15).

Table 15.

Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Examining Rates of Bystander Intervention as a Function of Perceived Social Norms and Fear of Positive Evaluation B SE B β R2 ∆R2

Covariates .02* --- SES-SFV 1.54 3.37 .14* BFNE-S .04 .63 -.02

Block 1 .07** .05** SES-SFV 1.31 .62 .12* BFNE-S -.01 .17 -.01 FPES .08 .11 .05 SNI-BOIS 3.49 .88 .21**

Block 2 .08** .01† SES-SFV 1.26 .62 .11* BFNE-S -.01 .17 .00 FPES .69 .36 .40† SNI-BOIS 6.63 1.97 .40** FPES*SNI-BOIS -.11 .06 -.41†

Notes. Dependent variable=Percent Bystander Intervention. SES-SFV=Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization; BFNE-S=Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation-Straightforward; FPES=Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale; SNI-BOIS= Social Norms-Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale; FPES*SNI-BOIS=Interaction between FPES and SNI-BOIS. ** p < .01, * p < .05, †p<.10.

Chapter 4: Discussion

The goal of the present study was to investigate how social anxiety and evaluative fears may impact the behavior of witnesses to sexual assault related situations. Although previous researchers have suggested that evaluative fears may act as barriers to intervening in such situations (Burn, 2009), research has yet to directly examine the relationship between bystander behavior and individual tendencies to experience anxiety in social situations. Advancing knowledge in this area is valuable given that social anxiety and sexual assault are both prevalent in society and in college populations

(Blanco et al., 2008; Kessler et al., 2005; Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin,

2009; Purdon et al., 2001). Moreover, developing a greater understanding of factors that influence the behavior of bystanders can help inform and refine sexual assault prevention programs, which are designed to aid communities in keeping individuals safe.

Results from the present study suggest that social anxiety may hinder bystander intervention in sexual assault related situations. Specifically, individuals with tendencies to avoid social situations recalled witnessing fewer sexual-assault related situations, and thus, had fewer opportunities to intervene. Highly socially anxious individuals often develop coping strategies that could make them less likely to witness high-risk situations.

For example, social anxiety disorder is frequently characterized by avoidance of feared situations (APA, 2013), which often include social gatherings and parties, instances in which sexual assaults commonly occur (Krebs et al., 2007). However, socially anxious individuals seem to be an important subgroup to target in the prevention of sexual assault.

These individuals often involve themselves in social interactions despite their anxiety 65 and, in this study, reported being a witness to a range of sexual-assault related situations quite frequently (though somewhat less often than their less socially anxious counterparts).8

Socially anxious individuals may fail to notice cues in the environment signaling that others are in a potentially risky situation. In Clark and Well’s (1995) cognitive model of social anxiety, concerns about negative evaluation cause socially anxious individuals to shift their attention toward detailed monitoring of themselves and consideration of how they appear to others. Clark and Wells argue that this preoccupied self-focus can interfere with processing one’s surroundings. Empirical research has demonstrated that social anxiety and tendencies to focus on the self result in less accurate and less detailed recall about social events (Schultz & Heimberg, 2008). Therefore, socially anxious individuals who tend to allocate attentional resources to monitoring the self may miss environmental cues indicating a high-risk situation for sexual assault, and thus, may report fewer opportunities to intervene in these situations.

Social anxiety and fears of negative evaluation were also associated with specific barriers to intervening. Compared to less socially anxious individuals, individuals with higher social anxiety reported that they would have more difficulty determining whether a situation is high-risk, would be less likely to take responsibility to intervene, and would be more uncertain of how to intervene. These barriers may reflect (1) a general lack of confidence in socially adept behavior and interpretation of social events as well as (2) interpersonal passivity characteristic of social anxiety (Beck, Emery, & Greenberg 1985;

Davila & Beck, 2002; Leary, Knight, & Johnson, 2012). 66

Concerns about social acceptance and evaluation were also viewed as barriers to intervening, particularly for socially anxious individuals. These individuals indicated that they would be more hesitant to intervene due to fears of looking foolish and concerns about peer approval. Such concerns may be rooted in feelings of inferiority (Beck et al.,

1985) and in a drive to avoid social exclusion (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Spoor &

Williams, 2007). According to psycho-evolutionary models (e.g., Trower et al., 1990), social anxiety serves to help individuals with low social status avoid rejection from their group by promoting submission and behavioral inhibition. Therefore, socially anxious individuals, who tend to view themselves as being inferior to others, may experience internal conflict between feeling responsible for intervening and behavioral inhibition fueled by a powerful need to belong.

Fear of positive evaluation was not related to barriers due to social inhibition in the present study. Although fear of positive evaluation may be less of a barrier to bystander intervention, it is possible that concerns related to fear of positive evaluation were not fully captured by the survey questionnaires. The content of the items in the

Barriers to Sexual Assault Bystander Intervention Questionnaire (i.e., “[…] fear I may look foolish” and “[…] fear that others would not support me”) appears more consistent with fear of negative evaluation. Future research should evaluate other concerns that are more consistent with fear of positive evaluation. For example, a bystander may wish to avoid becoming the center of attention, feel discomfort with potential praise, or fear embarrassing others or overstepping their place in the social hierarchy. 67

Given that social anxiety is thought to aid navigation of hierarchical social groups and help avoid conflict with more dominant others (Gilbert, 2014), the effect of social anxiety on bystander intervention was examined as a function of perpetrator social dominance. One analysis revealed an unexpected interaction effect; when the perpetrator was depicted as being socially dominant, social anxiety of the bystander slightly increased self-reported likelihood of intervening (though this trend was not statistically significant). On the other hand, when the perpetrator was depicted as non-dominant, social anxiety was unrelated to likelihood of intervening. These results should be interpreted cautiously given that the interaction effect was statistically significant only when one of two social anxiety scales in the study were used. Furthermore, there was no main effect of perpetrator social dominance on likelihood of intervening.

The nature of the interaction between social anxiety and dominance condition is surprising given that social anxiety is thought to prevent conflict with dominant others by promoting submissive behavior (Gilbert, 2014). Numerous studies have provided support for this theory by linking social anxiety to submissive cognitions and behaviors

(Schneier, Rodebaugh, Blanco, Lewin, & Liebowitz, 2011; Weeks, et al., 2011; Weeks,

Rodebaugh, Heimberg, Norton, & Jakatdar, 2009). However, the results are more consistent with the literature when one considers the method of intervention. Exploratory analyses suggest that social anxiety increases likelihood of using indirect, but not direct, methods of interfering with a dominant peer’s behavior. Therefore, socially anxious individuals are not more likely to confront the dominant perpetrator but appear more likely to recruit others for help (e.g., tell the host of the party). 68

It remains uncertain why this effect would occur only for more socially anxious individuals. This result is puzzling considering that socially anxious participants generally endorsed more barriers to intervening. Clearly, additional research is needed to better elucidate the relationship between perpetrator characteristics and social anxiety.

However, one possible explanation for these findings is that a dominant perpetrator increases arousal, particularly for socially anxious bystanders, which, in turn, increases motivation to intervene, albeit indirectly. Numerous studies have revealed a link between arousal and helping behavior (e.g., Coke, Batson, & McDavis, 1978; Harris & Huang,

1973). For example, participants who reported more emotional arousal donated more money to a real-life emergency (Amato, 1986). In another example, individuals were slower to assist in a staged emergency when they had less physiological arousal or when they misattributed their arousal to the effects of a placebo (Gaertner & Dovido, 1977).

Future studies on bystander behavior should consider measuring emotional and physiological arousal as a potential mediating variable.

The present study evaluated not only perceptions of the potential perpetrator, but also perceptions of other bystanders. Previous research has established social norms perceptions as being a strong predictor of bystander intervention (e.g., Austin et al. 2015;

Hoxmeier, et al., 2016). The present study provides additional empirical support for this concept. More favorable norms surrounding bystander intervention were related to fewer barriers to intervening. Consistent with this result, there was a strong positive relationship between social norms and likelihood of intervening at the bivariate level. This relationship remained significant when accounting for other factors, such as socially 69 desirable responding, tendency to experience evaluative fears, and alcohol consumption patterns. Although the effect was more modest, favorable social norms were also related to increased rates of actual intervention in the previous four months. Moreover, this relationship remained significant when controlling for factors such as previous sexual assault victimization and evaluative fears.

The present study further contributes to the social norms literature by evaluating how the relationship between social norms and bystander intervention is affected by evaluative fears. Contrary to expectations, the positive association between social norms and bystander intervention was strongest among individuals with relatively low evaluative fears, who, according to some analyses, were less likely to intervene than individuals with high evaluative fears. Although these findings are difficult to explain, it is possible that other factors influenced these results. For example, the present study did not evaluate the participants’ own perceptions and attitudes about intervening.

The number of bystanders present (or imagined in the vignette scenario) could also have impacted participants’ likelihood of intervening. Additional bystanders can decrease helping behavior by a number of mechanisms, including diffusion of responsibility, increased public scrutiny, and pluralistic ignorance (i.e., a phenomenon in which bystanders incorrectly assume that a situation does not require intervention due to inaction of other bystanders; Garcia et al., 2009; Latané & Darley, 1970). Although speculative, it is possible that individuals with greater evaluative fears were more likely to avoid large groups of people and, therefore, were in the presence of fewer individuals when observing sexual assault related situations. Such a situation would make social 70 norms less salient (Garcia et al., 2009). Indeed, highly socially anxious individuals tend to avoid social/performance situations that make them anxious (APA, 2013), and tend to have fewer friends and social relationships (Alden & Taylor, 2010). It is important to note direct tests of these speculations are needed. In future research, it may prove useful to manipulate the number of bystanders present in simulations or ask participants to estimate the number of bystanders that were present in real-life events. Future research could also benefit from examining the specific manner in which individuals intervened and their appraisals of what constitutes a helping/intervention behavior. For example, relatively inconspicuous behaviors may have been less affected by perceived social norms or fears of evaluation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that individuals vary with regards to how readily they label a specific behavior as “helping” or “intervening,” which may impact results.

Limitations and Future Directions

The present study has some methodological limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, it is important to consider the present study’s measures of bystander behavior. Measuring bystander intervention in situations related to sexual assault is not a straightforward or easy task for several reasons. Given that (a) there exists a wide variety of sexual assault related situations that bystanders may observe, and (b) bystanders may attempt to intervene in a multitude of ways, it is difficult to determine which situations and behaviors should be investigated. Additionally, such situations cannot be easily observed by researchers in naturalistic settings or reproduced by confederates in laboratory experiments. Therefore, there is currently no gold standard 71 measure for assessing bystander intervention in sexual assault situations. The present study aimed to improve upon previous methods by (a) using a multi-method approach to capitalize on the unique strengths of the different measures and mitigate their limitations and (b) modifying self-report questionnaires of actual behavior based on recommendations by experts in the field (McMahon et al., 2017).

Despite these efforts, the present study’s measures of bystander intervention have several limitations. First, the measure of actual bystander intervention was based on retrospective recall. This method allowed for efficient examination of many possible sexual assault situations but limits causal interpretations of the study results.

Additionally, as noted by Jouriles, Kleinsasser, Rosenfield, and McDonald (2016), individuals who could have intervened, but failed to notice a potentially risky situation was occurring, were unable to provide accurate estimates of their opportunities to intervene. Further, human memory is fallible, and participants may not have responded accurately to the questionnaire items. Indeed, Simon and VonKorff (1995) documented moderate levels of error in studies that used retrospective recall to evaluate past psychopathology. Future studies could experiment with ecological momentary assessments to obtain responses about bystander behavior closer in proximity to the events. Future research could also use prospective designs (e.g., inquiring about social anxiety at time 1 and bystander behavior at time 2) to enhance causal inferences; however, it is important to note that such a design could not control for all possible confounds, and firm conclusions about causality are only possible with randomization and experimental manipulation. 72

The vignettes used in the present study did allow for experimental manipulation of perpetrator social dominance and randomization into condition (i.e., dominant and non-dominant perpetrator conditions). However, this manipulation appears to have been subtler than intended. Although participants rated the perpetrators as being significantly different in social dominance, the difference between the dominant and non-dominant perpetrator was only 1.36 on a 7-point scale. This relatively small difference could have obscured true associations between social anxiety, perpetrator social dominance, and likelihood of intervening. Relatedly, the present study examined intervention behavior in relation to a dominant and non-dominant (i.e., neutral), but not a submissive, perpetrator.

It is possible that socially anxious individuals would respond differently to a submissive perpetrator than a more neutral perpetrator. Future research could benefit from examining socially anxious individuals’ responses to perpetrators who are highly submissive compared to perpetrators who are highly socially dominant.

Another limitation to the present study is that responses to vignettes do not fully approximate behavior in real life situations. When responding to vignette scenarios, participants may have difficulty accounting for barriers that would have impacted them in a real-life situation, especially given that the vignette was unlikely to evoke the same degree of emotional arousal as it would if it were actually occurring. Indeed, intent to intervene has been shown to correlate with actual bystander behavior at small to medium effect sizes (Banyard, 2008), which was replicated with data from the present study.

Moreover, in the present study, some of the results did not generalize from intent to intervene in the vignette scenario to self-reported actual bystander intervention. For 73 example, there was a significant interaction effect for perceived social norms and fear of negative evaluation when actual self-reported behavior was used as the outcome variable, but not when likelihood of intervening in the vignette scenario was used as the outcome variable. The opposite was true for the interaction between perceived social norms and fear of positive evaluation; this interaction effect was significant when likelihood of intervening in the vignette scenario was used as the outcome variable, and only trended toward significance when actual self-reported bystander intervention was the outcome variable.

The majority of research on sexual assault has been based on self-report, and the field could benefit from more objective measures. Researchers have developed creative ways of simulating situations that are difficult to mimic in the laboratory. Jouriles et al.

(2016) had success using immersive virtual reality to simulate situations that could lead to sexual violence. Fischer and colleagues (2006) successfully staged a scenario in which participants witnessed a male actor sexually harass and physically intimidate a female actor. Such laboratory designs may be somewhat limited in their ecological validity but allow for direct observation of actual behavior and manipulation of predictor variables.

For example, researchers could manipulate social norms using confederates who either endorse or criticize bystander intervention, rape myths, and/or sexism. Researchers could even manipulate state social anxiety using well-established experimental methods, such as informing participants that they will be asked to give an impromptu speech to an audience (e.g., Hofmann, Moscovitch, & Kim, 2006; Mansell, Ehlers, Clark, & Chen,

2002; Richards et al., 2015; Sevens et al., 2011). 74

It is also important to note that the results may have been different if examined in a highly socially anxious population. The present study focused on evaluating the general population of college students, a population frequently targeted by bystander intervention programs. Not surprisingly, the average levels of social anxiety and evaluative fears are what would be expected in a university sample (e.g., Weeks et al., 2008), and the majority of the sample scored below the clinical cutoff on a social anxiety measure

(Rodebaugh et al., 2011). Some meaningful effects may only emerge at higher levels of social anxiety and evaluative fears; therefore, an important next step is to examine bystander behavior in individuals with social anxiety disorder or high levels of social anxiety.

The present study was also limited in the representativeness of the sample. The goal of the present study was to examine bystander behavior in college students, given that the rates of sexual assault among college populations are quite high. Therefore, the sample consisted strictly of university students and it is unclear whether the results would generalize to other populations. These sample characteristics are important to consider, given that previous research suggests that general culture and norms may differ in college versus non-college populations (White, Fleming, Kim, Catalano, & McMorris, 2008;

Quinn & Fromme, 2011). Furthermore, the study was limited to students enrolled in one

Midwestern university. The racial demographics of the sample were overwhelmingly non-Hispanic White/Caucasian which reflects the racial makeup of the general student body. An important future direction is to examine these study questions at other universities, particularly those with more racially diverse populations. In addition, given 75 that nearly three quarters of the sample identified as female, it is important to examine these findings in males more closely. Men were less likely to intervene and, when compared to women, may have different or more pronounced evaluative fears, such as appearing weak (Carlson, 2008) or losing respect (Sein, 2007). Such concerns might be particularly relevant when considering the effects of social dominance hierarchies.

It is also important to note the possibility of Type I error in the study analyses, given that two or more analyses were used to test each hypothesis. There are differing opinions regarding whether statistical corrections for multiple comparisons are necessary and appropriate, particularly when studies are not strictly confirmatory, as is true for the present study (i.e., the goal is not to derive “definitive proof of a predefined key hypothesis for decision making” [Bender & Lange, 2001, p. 344]). Regardless, the present study provides an initial investigation of the association between social anxiety and bystander intervention, and replication is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.

Conclusions

The present study is the first to examine how social anxiety shapes bystander behavior in sexual assault situations. The results suggest that the relationship between social anxiety and bystander behavior is complex. As expected, socially anxious individuals tend to report fewer opportunities to intervene and perceive more barriers to intervening when given the opportunity; however, simple correlational analyses show no relationship between social anxiety and rates of self-reported bystander intervention. In fact, some findings suggest that indirect intervention may increase with increasing social 76 anxiety in the presence of a dominant perpetrator. The results of the present study do corroborate existing literature (e.g., Hoxmeier et al., 2016; Stein, 2007) that identifies perceived social norms as a robust predictor of bystander behavior. Surprisingly, some of the results suggest that individuals with relatively high evaluative fears are less affected by perceived social norms than are individuals with relatively low evaluative fears. In all, the field of sexual assault prevention could benefit from more research on bystander social anxiety and other individual traits, which have generally been neglected.

Bystanders are a critical resource in the prevention of sexual violence, and there is significant room for improving rates of bystander intervention in college populations. In the present study, bystanders intervened less than one third of the time, which is consistent with previous research (Murphy, 2014). The results of the present study have implications for sexual assault prevention programs that encourage bystanders to become more involved. For example, the findings support intervention approaches (such as those developed by Gidycz, Orchowski et al., [2011]), that aim to correct social norms misperceptions surrounding the topic of sexual violence and bystander intervention. It appears that these interventions are relevant to all audience members, regardless of their trait social anxiety or evaluative fears. The findings also support presenting a variety of potential intervention options to students. With socially anxious students, it may be particularly important to discuss effective indirect methods of intervening when a dominant perpetrator is involved. Socially anxious individuals may feel more comfortable, and therefore be more likely, to alert other individuals, such as the victim’s friends, or provide distraction than directly engage the victim or perpetrator. 77

Finally, program elements that address barriers to bystander intervention may be particularly relevant for socially anxious individuals. For example, providing psychoeducation about how to recognize signs of a risky situation (as in Berkowitz et al.’s [2006] men’s program and Foubert, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Brasfield, & Hill’s

[2010] women’s program) and understand pluralistic ignorance may help socially anxious bystanders become more knowledgeable and assured in their assessment of social situations. It may also prove useful to highlight that these risk factors are applicable regardless of the potential perpetrator’s size or social status. Furthermore, training individuals to develop effective methods of intervening, and overcome evaluation apprehension may increase confidence and willingness to intervene. Programs that build self-efficacy through active learning and practice (e.g., Ahrens, Rich, & Ullman, 2011;

Banyard, Moynihan et al., 2007) may be particularly well-suited for socially anxious individuals who tend to believe their social skills are inadequate, though further research is needed in this area.

References

Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P. O., Clinton, A. M., & McAuslan, P. (2001). Alcohol

and sexual assault. Alcohol Research and Health, 25(1), 43-51.

Ahrens, C. E., Rich, M. D., & Ullman, J. B. (2011). Rehearsing for real life: The impact

of the InterACT sexual assault prevention program on self-reported likelihood of

engaging in bystander interventions. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 760-776.

Alden, L. E., & Taylor, C. T. (2010). Interpersonal processes in social anxiety disorder.

In J. G. Beck (Ed.), Interpersonal processes in the anxiety disorders: Implications

for understanding psychopathology and treatment (pp. 125-152). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Amato, P. R. (1986). Emotional Arousal and Helping Behavior in a Real‐Life

Emergency. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16(7), 633-641.

American College Health Association. (2007). Position statement on preventing sexual

violence on college and university campuses. Linthicum, MD.

American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of

mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub.

Austin, M. J. M., Dardis, C. M., Wilson, M. S., Gidycz, C. A., & Berkowitz, A. D.

(2015). Predictors of Sexual Assault–Specific Prosocial Bystander Behavior and

Intentions A Prospective Analysis. Violence against women, 22(1), 90-111.

Baker, S. L., Heinrichs, N., Kim, H. J., & Hofmann, S. G. (2002). The Liebowitz social

anxiety scale as a self-report instrument: a preliminary psychometric

analysis. Behaviour research and therapy, 40(6), 701-715. 79

Bandelow, B., & Michaelis, S. (2015). Epidemiology of anxiety disorders in the 21st

century. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 17(3), 327-335.

Banyard, V. L. (2008). Measurement and correlates of prosocial bystander behavior: The

case of interpersonal violence. Violence and Victims, 23(1), 83-97.

Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E. G. (2007). Sexual violence prevention

through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community

Psychology, 35(4), 463-481.

Banyard, V.L., Plante, E., Ward, S., Cohn, E.S., Moorhead, C., & Walsh, W. (2005).

Revisiting unwanted sexual experiences on campus: A 12 year follow- up.

Violence Against Women, 11, 426 – 446.

Banyard, V. L., Ward, S., Cohn, E. S., Plante, E. G., Moorhead, C., & Walsh, W. (2007).

Unwanted sexual contact on campus: A comparison of women's and men's

experiences. Violence and Victims, 22(1), 52-70.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal

attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,

497–529.

Beck, A. T., Emery, G., & Greenberg, R. L. (1985). Anxiety disorders and phobias: A

cognitive approach. New York: Basic Books.

Bender, R., & Lange, S. (2001). Adjusting for multiple testing—when and how? Journal

of Clinical Epidemiology, 54(4), 343-349.

Bennett, S., & Banyard, V. L. (2016). Do friends really help friends? The effect of

relational factors and perceived severity on bystander perception of sexual 80

violence. Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 64-72.

Bennett, S., Banyard, V. L., & Garnhart, L. (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.

Berkowitz, A. D. (2010). Fostering healthy norms to prevent violence and abuse: The

social norms approach. In K. Kaufman (Ed.), The prevention of sexual violence: A

practitioner’s sourcebook (pp. 147-171). NEARI Press.

Berkowitz, A. D. (2011). Using how college men feel about being men and “doing the

right thing” to promote men’s development. In J. Laker, & T. Davis (Eds.),

Masculinities in higher education: Theoretical and practical considerations, (pp.

161-176). New York, NY: Routledge.

Berkowitz, A. D., Lobo, T., & Gidycz, C. A., Robison, T., & Zimak, E. (2006).

Community programming initiative program protocol: The men’s workshop.

Unpublished program protocol.

Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T.,

& Stevens, M. R. (2011). National intimate partner and sexual violence survey

(NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury

Prevention and Control, Centers Disease Control and Prevention.

Blanco, C., Okuda, M., Wright, C., Hasin, D. S., Grant, B. F., Liu, S. M., & Olfson, M.

(2008). Mental health of college students and their non–college-attending peers:

results from the national epidemiologic study on alcohol and related

conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 65(12), 1429-1437. 81

Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural

equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305.

Breen, W. E., & Kashdan, T. B. (2011). Anger suppression after imagined rejection

among individuals with social anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 25(7), 879-

887.

Burn, S. M. (2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander

intervention. Sex Roles, 60, 779-792.

Bush, K., Kivlahan, D. R., McDonell, M. B., Fihn, S. D., & Bradley, K. A. (1998). The

AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C): An effective brief screening

test for problem drinking. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158(16), 1789-1795.

Chabot, H. F., Tracy, T. L., Manning, C. A., & Poisson, C. A. (2009). Sex, attribution,

and severity influence intervention decisions of informal helpers in domestic

violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1696–1713.

Chen, L. P., Murad, M. H., Paras, M. L., Colbenson, K. M., Sattler, A. L., Goranson, E.

N., ... & Zirakzadeh, A. (2010). Sexual abuse and lifetime diagnosis of psychiatric

disorders: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 85(7),

618-629.

Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In R. G. Heimberg

(Ed.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 69-93). New

York, NY: Guilford Press.

Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, K. (1978). Empathic mediation of helping: a two-

stage model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(7), 752-766. 82

Coker, A. L., Bush, H. M., Fisher, B. S., Swan, S. C., Williams, C. M., Clear, E. R., &

DeGue., S. (2016). Multi-college bystander intervention evaluation for violence

prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50(3), 295-302.

Coker, A. L., Fisher, B. S., Bush, H. M., Swan, S. C., Williams, C. M., Clear, E. R., &

DeGue, S. (2015). Evaluation of the Green Dot bystander intervention to reduce

interpersonal violence among college students across three campuses. Violence

Against Women, 21, 1507-1527.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of

psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349-354.

Davila, J., & Beck, J. G. (2002). Is social anxiety associated with impairment in close

relationships? A preliminary investigation. Behavior Therapy, 33, 447–464.

Fergus, T. A., Valentiner, D. P., McGrath, P. B., Stephenson, K., Gier, S., & Jecius, S.

(2009). The Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale: Psychometric properties in a

clinical sample. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23, 117-1183.

Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., Pollozek, F., & Frey, D. (2006). The unresponsive

bystander: Are bystanders more responsive in dangerous emergencies? European

Journal of Social Psychology, 36(2), 267-278.

Foubert, J. D., Langhinrichsen‐Rohling, J., Brasfield, H., & Hill, B. (2010). Effects of a

rape awareness program on college women: Increasing bystander efficacy and

willingness to intervene. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(7), 813-827.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1977). The subtlety of White racism, arousal, and

helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(10), 691-707. 83

Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., Darley, J. M., & Spence, B. T. (2009). Dual effects of implicit

bystanders: Inhibiting vs. facilitating helping behavior. Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 19(2), 215-224.

Gidycz, C. A., Orchowski, L. M., & Berkowitz, A. D. (2011). Preventing sexual

aggression among college men: An evaluation of a social norms and bystander

intervention program. Violence Against Women, 17, 720-742.

Gidycz, C. A., Warkentin, J. B., & Orchowski, L. M. (2007). Predictors of perpetration of

verbal, physical, and sexual violence: A prospective analysis of college

men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8(2), 79-94.

Gidycz, C. A., Warkentin, J. B., Orchowski, L. M., & Edwards, K. M. (2011). College

men's perceived likelihood to perpetrate sexual aggression. Journal of Aggression,

Maltreatment & Trauma, 20(3), 260-279.

Gilbert, P. (2001). Evolution and social anxiety: The role of attraction, social

competition, and social hierarchies. The Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 24,

723-751.

Gilbert, P. (2014). Evolutionary models: Practical and conceptual utility for the treatment

and study of social anxiety disorder. In J. Weeks (Ed.), The Wiley Blackwell

handbook of social anxiety disorder, (pp. 24-52). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley

& Sons.

Harris, M. B., & Huang, L. C. (1973). Helping and the attribution process. The Journal of

Social Psychology, 90(2), 291-297.

Hawkins, M. T., Letcher, P., Sanson, A., Smart, D., & Toumbourou, J. W. (2009). 84

Positive development in emerging adulthood. Australian Journal of

Psychology, 61(2), 89-99.

Hofmann, S. G., Moscovitch, D. A., & Kim, H. J. (2006). Autonomic correlates of social

anxiety and embarrassment in shy and non-shy individuals. International Journal

of Psychophysiology, 61(2), 134-142.

Hope, D. A., Heimberg, R. G., & Turk, C. L. (2010). Managing social anxiety: a

cognitive-behavioral therapy approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Hoxmeier, J. C., Flay, B. R., & Acock, A. C. (2016). Control, norms, and attitudes:

Differences between students who do and do not intervene as bystanders to sexual

assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. doi:

0886260515625503

Johnson, S. M., Murphy, M. J., & Gidycz, C. A. (2017). Reliability and validity of the

Sexual Experiences Survey–Short Forms Victimization and Perpetration. Violence

and Victims, 32(1), 78-92.

Jones, W. H., Briggs, S. R., & Smith, T. G. (1986). Shyness: conceptualization and

measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 629-639.

Jouriles, E. N., Kleinsasser, A., Rosenfield, D., & McDonald, R. (2016). Measuring

bystander behavior to prevent sexual violence: Moving beyond self

reports. Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 73.

Katz, J. (1995). Reconstructing masculinity in the locker room: The Mentors in Violence

Prevention Project. Harvard Educational Review, 65(2), 163-175. 85

Katz, J., Colbert, S., & Colangelo, L. (2015). Effects of group status and victim sex on

female bystanders' responses to a potential party rape. Violence and

Victims, 30(2), 265-278.

Katz, J., Merrilees, C., Hoxmeier, J. C., & Motisi, M. (2017). White female bystanders’

responses to a black woman at risk for incapacitated sexual assault. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 41(2), 273-285.

Kessler, R. C., Chiu, W. T., Demler, O., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Prevalence, severity,

and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity

Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(6), 617-627.

Kobak, K. A., Schaettle, S. C., Greist, J. H., Jefferson, J. W., Katzelnick, D. J., & Dottl,

S. L. (1998). Computer-administered rating scales for social anxiety in a clinical

drug trial. Depression and Anxiety, 7, 97–104.

Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T. D., Fisher, B. S., & Martin, S. L. (2007). The

Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study. Retrieved from

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf

Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T. D., Fisher, B. S., & Martin, S. L. (2009).

College women's experiences with physically forced, alcohol-or other drug-

enabled, and drug-facilitated sexual assault before and since entering

college. Journal of American College Health, 57(6), 639-649.

Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., ... & White, J.

(2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of

sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(4), 357- 86

370.

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help?

New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Leary, M. R. (1983). A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 371–375.

Leary, M. R., Knight, P. D., & Johnson, K. A. (2012). Social anxiety and dyadic

conversation: A verbal response analysis. Journal of Social and Clinical

Psychology, 5, 34-50.

Leone, R. M., Haikalis, M., Parrott, D. J., & DiLillo, D. (2017). Bystander Intervention to

Prevent Sexual Violence: The Overlooked Role of Bystander Alcohol

Intoxication. Psychology of Violence, Advance online publication. doi:

10.1037/vio0000155

Levine, M., & Crowther, S. (2008). The responsive bystander: How social group

membership and group size can encourage as well as inhibit bystander

intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1429–1439.

Liebowitz, M. R. (1987). Social phobia. Modern Problems of Pharmacopsychiatry, 22,

141–173.

Loh, C., Gidycz, C. A., Lobo, T. R., & Luthra, R. (2005). A prospective analysis of

sexual assault perpetration risk factors related to perpetrator

characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(10), 1325-1348.

Loo, R., & Thorpe, K. (2000). Confirmatory factor analyses of the full and short versions

of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. The Journal of Social 87

Psychology, 140(5), 628-635.

Mansell, W., Ehlers, A., Clark, D., & Chen, Y. P. (2002). Attention to positive and

negative social-evaluative words: Investigating the effects of social anxiety, trait

anxiety and social threat. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 15(1), 19-29.

Mattick, R. P., & Clarke, J. C. (1998). Development and validation of measures of social

phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and

Therapy, 36, 455–470.

McMahon, S. (2015). Call for research on bystander intervention to prevent sexual

violence: the role of campus environments. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 55, 472-489.

McMahon, S., Palmer, J. E., Banyard, V., Murphy, M., & Gidycz, C. A. (2017).

Measuring bystander behavior in the context of sexual violence prevention:

Lessons learned and new directions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(16),

2396-2418.

Mick, M. A., & Telch, M. J. (1998). Social anxiety and history of behavioral inhibition in

young adults. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 12(1), 1-20.

Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Taylor, A., Kokaua, J., Milne, B. J., Polanczyk, G., & Poulton,

R. (2010). How common are common mental disorders? Evidence that lifetime

prevalence rates are doubled by prospective versus retrospective ascertainment.

Psychological Medicine, 40, 899-909.

Murphy, M. J. (2014). Sexual assault-specific bystander behavior: Accounting for

opportunity in a prospective analysis of the effects of individual, social norms, 88

and situational variables (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio University).

Neczypor, B. N. (2014). [Self-reported social anxiety in a large sample of college

students] Unpublished raw data.

Neczypor, B. N. (2015). Examining the Relationship Between Social Anxiety and Positive

Social Attention (Master’s thesis, Ohio University).

Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation

checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867-872.

Planty, M. (2002). Third-party involvement in violent crime, 1993-99 (US Bureau of

Justice Statistics Special Report NCJ 189100). Washington, DC: US Department

of Justice.

Pugh, B., Ningard, H., Ven, T. V., & Butler, L. (2016). Victim ambiguity: Bystander

intervention and sexual assault in the college drinking scene. Deviant

Behavior, 37(4), 401-418.

Purdon, C., Antony, M., Monteiro, S., & Swinson, R. P. (2001). Social anxiety in college

students. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 15(3), 203-215.

Quinn, P. D., & Fromme, K. (2011). Alcohol use and related problems among college

students and their noncollege peers: The competing roles of personality and peer

influence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72(4), 622-632.

Ranđelović, K. M., & Želeskov-Đorić, J. D. (2017). Fear of negative evaluation and

social anxiety in the context of the revised reinforcement sensitivity

theory. Zbornik radova Filozofskog fakulteta u Prištini, 47(3), 239-259. 89

Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in

social phobia. Behavior Research and Therapy, 35, 741-756.

Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe‐

Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119-

125.

Rich, C. L., Gidycz, C. A., Warkentin, J. B., Loh, C., & Weiland, P. (2005). Child and

adolescent abuse and subsequent victimization: A prospective study. Child Abuse

& Neglect, 29(12), 1373-1394.

Richards, J. M., Patel, N., Daniele-Zegarelli, T., MacPherson, L., Lejuez, C. W., & Ernst,

M. (2015). Social anxiety, acute social stress, and reward parameters interact to

predict risky decision-making among adolescents. Journal of Anxiety

Disorders, 29, 25-34.

Rodebaugh, T. L., Heimberg. R. G., Brown, P. J, Fernandez, K. C., Blanco, C., Schneier,

F. R., & Liebowitz, M. R. (2011). More reasons to be straightforward: Findings

and norms for two scales relevant to social anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,

25, 623-630.

Rodebaugh, T. L., Woods, C. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (2007). The reverse of social

anxiety is not always the opposite: The reverse scored items of the Social

Interaction Anxiety Scale do not belong. Behavior Therapy, 38, 192–206.

Rodebaugh, T. L., Woods, C. M., Thissen, D. M., Heimberg, R. G., Chambless, D. L., &

Rapee, R. M. (2004). More information from fewer questions: The factor

structure and item properties of the original and Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation 90

Scale. Psychological Assessment, 16, 169–181.

Salazar, L. F., Vivolo-Kantor, A., Hardin, J., & Berkowitz, A. (2014). A web-based

sexual violence bystander intervention for male college students: Randomized

controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(9): e203.

Saunders, J. B., Aasland, O. G., Babor, T. F., De la Fuente, J. R., & Grant, M. (1993).

Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO

collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol

consumption‐II. Addiction, 88(6), 791-804.

Schneier, F. R., Rodebaugh, T. L., Blanco, C., Lewin, W., & Liebowitz, M. R. (2011).

Fear and avoidance of eye contact in social anxiety disorder. Comprehensive

Psychiatry, 52, 81-87.

Schultz, L. T., & Heimberg, R. G. (2008). Attentional focus in social anxiety disorder:

potential for interactive processes. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(7), 1206-1221.

Schwartz, C. E., Snidman, N., & Kagan, J. (1999). Adolescent social anxiety as an

outcome of inhibited temperament in childhood. Journal of the American

Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38(8), 1008-1015.

Simon, G. E., & VonKorff, M. (1995). Recall of psychiatric history in cross-sectional

surveys: Implications for epidemiologic research. Epidemiologic Reviews, 17,

221-227.

Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job

stressors and strain: interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints 91

scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal

of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 356.

Spoor, J., &Williams, K.D. (2007). The evolution of an ostracism detection system. In J.

Forgas, M. Haselton, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The evolution of the social mind:

Evolutionary psychology and social cognition (pp. 279-292). New York, NY:

Psychology Press.

Stein, J. L. (2007). Peer educators and close friends as predictors of male college

students' willingness to prevent rape. Journal of College Student

Development, 48(1), 75-89.

Stephens, T., & Joubert, N. (2001). The economic burden of mental health problems in

Canada. Chronic Diseases and Injuries in Canada, 22(1), 18-23.

Trower, P., Gilbert, P., & Sherling, G. (1990). Social anxiety, evolution, and self-

presentation: An interdisciplinary perspective. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook

of social and evaluation anxiety (pp. 11-46). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Turchik, J. A., Probst, D. R., Chau, M., Nigoff, A., & Gidycz, C. A. (2007). Factors

predicting the type of tactics used to resist sexual assault: a prospective study of

college women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(4), 605.

Wagner, C., Stangier, U., Heidenreich, T., & Schneider, R. (2004). " Drinking due to

Social Anxiety" and" Social Anxiety due to Drinking": Development to two

scales for alcohol-dependency. Zeitschrift fur Klinische Psychologie und

Psychotherapie, 33(4), 308-315.

Weeks, J. W., Heimberg, R. G., Fresco, D. M., Hart, T. A., Turk, C. L., Schneier, F. R., 92

& Liebowitz, M. R. (2005). Empirical validation and psychometric evaluation of

the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale in patients with social anxiety

disorder. Psychological Assessment, 17, 179–190.

Weeks, J. W., Heimberg, R. G., & Heuer, R. (2011). Exploring the role of behavioral

submissiveness in social anxiety. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 30,

217-249.

Weeks, J. W., Heimberg, R. G., & Rodebaugh, T. L. (2008). The Fear of Positive

Evaluation Scale: Assessing a proposed cognitive component of social anxiety

disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22, 44–55.

Weeks, J. W., Heimberg, R. G., Rodebaugh, T. L., Goldin, P. R., & Gross, J. (2012).

Psychometric evaluation of the Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale (FPES) in

patients with social anxiety disorder. Psychological Assessment, 24, 301-312.

Weeks, J. W., & Howell, A. N. (2012). The bivalent fear of evaluation model of social

anxiety: further integrating findings on fears of positive and negative evaluation.

Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 41, 83-95.

Weeks, J. W., & Howell, A. N. (2014). Fear of Positive Evaluation: The neglected fear

domain in social anxiety. In J. Weeks (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of

social anxiety disorder. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester, UK.

Weeks, J. W., Rodebaugh, T. L., Heimberg, R. G., Norton, P. J., & Jakatdar, T. A.

(2009). “To avoid evaluation, withdraw”: Fears of evaluation and depressive

cognitions lead to social anxiety and submissive withdrawal. Cognitive Therapy

and Research, 33, 375-389. 93

White, H. R., Fleming, C. B., Kim, M. J., Catalano, R. F., & McMorris, B. J. (2008).

Identifying two potential mechanisms for changes in alcohol use among college-

attending and non-college-attending emerging adults. Developmental

Psychology, 44(6), 1625-1639.

Wyatt, J. D. (2016). Bystander Behavior Intervention in Risky Sexual Assault Situations:

An Examination of Social Norms and Situational Factors (Master’s thesis, Ohio

University).

Endnotes

1Being excluded based on integrity checks was not associated with age r(413)=.008, p=.87, or year in college r(413)=.05, p=.28. The retention rate was similar among men (90.3%) and women (88.9%), t(406)=.41, p=.69, and these rates did not differ by race, F(5, 407)=0.96, p=.44. Pairwise comparisons using Tukey’s HSD did not reveal any differences in retention rates among any racial groups, all ps>.05. However, regarding ethnicity, participants who identified as Hispanic or Latino were more likely to be retained (100%) than those who did not identify as Hispanic or Latino (88.7%), t(398)=7.11, p<.001.

2Findings did not differ when analyzed with the entire sample of 413 participants versus the final sample of 368 with one notable exception. In analysis 4b, fear of negative evaluation did not moderate the relationship between perceived social norms and percent bystander intervention, p=.46, when the entire sample of 413 was analyzed, but did moderate the relationship, p=.046 when the final sample of 368 participants was used.

3Independent samples t tests revealed that, when compared to men (M=23.56,

SD=20.52), women reported a higher rate of intervening (M=33.15, SD=24.05) in the previous four months (i.e., Percent Bystander Intervention Score), t(186)=3.71, p<.001, d=0.41. Women (M=5.012, SD=0.83) also reported greater likelihood of intervening in a vignette scenario (i.e., Likelihood of Intervening Scale) than men (M=4.79, SD=0.87), t(362)=2.17, p=.03, d=0.26. This effect held for direct (women: M=5.27, SD=1.10; men:

M=5.00; SD=1.11) t(326)=2.07, p=.04, d=.25, but not indirect (women: M=4.65,

SD=.097; men: M=4.54, SD=0.97), t(184)=1.08, p=.28, d=.13, methods of intervening. 95

According to paired-samples t-tests, both women (direct: M=5.28, SD=1.10; indirect:

M=4.65, SD=0.97), t(270)=8.71, p<.001, d=.54, and men (direct: M=5.00, SD=1.11; indirect: M=4.54, SD=0.83), t(92)=4.24, p<.001, d=.43, reported that they would be more likely to intervene directly than indirectly. Women also perceived social norms about intervening to be more positive than men, both in the vignette scenario (i.e., Social

Norms-Likelihood of Intervening Scale; women: M=5.20, SD=0.91; men: M=4.88;

SD=1.01), t(362)=2.80, p=.005, d=0.34, and in a variety of sexual assault related situations (i.e., Social Norms-Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale; women:

M=5.55, SD=1.34; men: M=4.79; SD=1.57), t(141)=4.19, p<.001, d=0.54. See

Instruments section for a description of the measures used in these analyses. Adding gender as a covariate in the regression analyses did not change the results of the study.

4 Independent samples t tests revealed that individuals who had participated in a sexual assault prevention/risk reduction program reported fewer barriers to intervening

(had participated: M=2.59, SD=0.82; had not participated: M=3.18, SD=0.96), t(366)=4.76, p<.001, d=0.64, greater likelihood of intervening in the vignette (had participated: M=5.17, SD=0.69; had not participated: M=4.90, SD=0.88), t(366)=2.38, p=.018, d=0.32, and a higher rate of intervention in the previous four months (had participated: M=36.70, SD=23.77; had not participated: M=29.65, SD=23.39), t(362)=2.22, p=.027, d=0.30. They also perceived social norms about intervening to be more positive, both in the vignette scenario (i.e., Social Norms-Likelihood of Intervening

Scale; had participated: M=5.42, SD=0.81; had not participated: M=5.05, SD=0.96), t(366)=2.90, p=.004, d=0.39, and in a variety of sexual assault related situations (i.e., 96

Social Norms-Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale; had participated: M=5.84,

SD=1.07; had not participated: M=5.25, SD=1.48), t(132)=3.78, p<.001, d=0.42. See

Instruments section for a description of the measures used in these analyses. Adding participation in a sexual assault prevention as a covariate in the primary analyses did not change the results of the study.

5 In the pilot study, 19 participants were randomly assigned to read either (1) the vignette depicting the dominant perpetrator (dominant condition; n=11) or (2) the vignette depicting the less dominant perpetrator (subordinate condition, n=8). After reading the vignettes, participants rated the perpetrator’s dominance, competitiveness, popularity, and leadership on a 0-100 scale (0=not at all, 100=completely). These ratings were averaged to create a social dominance composite score (α=.85). On the same scale, participants rated the potential perpetrator on trustworthiness and similarity to the participant, two dimensions that should be unrelated to social dominance, but could theoretically influence bystander intervention.

Independent samples t-tests were used to evaluate whether perceptions of the perpetrator differed based on condition. As expected, participants who read the vignette intended to depict a socially dominant perpetrator rated him as more socially dominant

(M=73.56, SD=15.11) than did those who read the vignette depicting a less socially dominant perpetrator (M=45.81, SD=16.64), t(16)=3.70, p=.002, d=1.76. Also as expected, the dominant perpetrator and non-dominant perpetrators were not perceived to differ significantly with regard to trustworthiness (dominant: M=28.70, SD=30.00; non- dominant: M=22.00, SD=20.79), t(16)=.38, p=.60, d=.25 or similarity to the participant 97

(dominant: M=15.00, SD=19.59; non-dominant: M=16.86, SD=26.97), t(13)=.15, p=88, d=.08.

6 High internal consistency was not necessarily expected for the Bystander

Opportunity and Intervention-Revised scales given that the items are conceptually distinct and determine the latent variables (i.e., causal indicators), rather than being determined by the latent variable (i.e., effect indicators). In other words, the items are related, but not necessarily indicative of the same underlying construct. See Bollen and

Lennox (1991) and Spector and Jex (1998) for an overview.

7When the improbable values were removed, rather than transformed, the results of analysis 1 were no longer statistically significant. Specifically, the Liebowitz Social

Anxiety Scale-Self Report avoidance subscale score and the Bystander Opportunity and

Intervention Scale-Revised opportunity scale were not correlated, r(322)=-.07, p=.25.

Furthermore, the regression model in analysis 1b was not statistically significant, F(3,

286)=0.52, p=.67, R2=.05, nor were the individual predictor variables, all ps>.05.

Similarly, when the raw data was used (i.e., improbable values were not removed or transformed), the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self Report avoidance subscale score and the Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale-Revised opportunity scale were not correlated, r(322)=-.06, p=.32. Furthermore, the regression model in analysis 1b was not statistically significant, F(3, 286)=0.52, p=.78, R2=.06, nor were the individual predictor variables, all ps>.05. 98

8 Individual scoring one standard deviation above the mean on the Leibowitz

Social Anxiety Scale-Self Report reported witnessing an average of 92 (Mdn=53.5;

SD=119.65) situations on the Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale-Revised.

Appendix A: Vignettes

Potential perpetrator is socially dominant

It is a typical Friday night and you are invited to a party that one of your classmates is throwing. You don’t know the person very well, but since there isn’t anything else going on tonight—we are in Athens—you decide to go alone/with three of your close friends. You expect you’ll run into some friends there. When you first arrive, you realize that all of the beer is gone. You are sober because you didn’t have anything to drink before the party, either. You (and your three friends) walk to the back of the house looking for other people you know. As you look around you see empty beer bottles on a beer pong table, some people dancing, and an empty keg by a staircase leading up to some rooms. As you (and your friends) are standing, you look around and do not recognize anyone in the crowd.

Just as you are considering leaving, you see a male that you recognize from class and have seen around campus. He is of average build and stature, around 5’9” and 180 pounds. You know a number of things about him from having overheard his conversations with others before class. You noticed that he is usually pretty competitive and likes taking control of situations when he can. You know that he is the captain of the intermural soccer team and leads practices and games. You also know that he wants to be a physical therapist and run his own practice one day. You have overheard him talk about weekend plans, in which he tends to get a big group of friends together. He recently organized a skiing trip with friends and talked about how he enjoyed trying to beat everyone down the big hills.

You see this seemingly sober male approach a seemingly intoxicated girl who just spilled her drink on herself. The male takes a tissue from his pocket and starts to wipe the spilt drink from the girl’s sleeve. He seems to have no problem with coordination as he leans over the girl and starts to whisper into her ear. The sober male then points the way to the stairs and leads the girl, who is swaying back and forth, up the stairs with his hand on the female’s butt. You see him open the first door and notice that there is a dresser, lamp, and bed in the corner of the room. The door closes behind them.

Potential perpetrator is non-dominant

It is a typical Friday night and you are invited to a party that one of your classmates is throwing. You don’t know the person very well, but since there isn’t anything else going on tonight—we are in Athens—you decide to go alone/with three of your close friends. You expect you’ll run into some friends there. When you first arrive, you realize that all of the beer is gone. You are sober because you didn’t have anything to drink before the party, either. You (and your three friends) walk to the back of the house looking for other people you know. As you look 100 around you see empty beer bottles on a beer pong table, some people dancing, and an empty keg by a staircase leading up to some rooms. As you (and your friends) are standing, you look around and do not recognize anyone in the crowd.

Just as you are considering leaving, you see a male that you recognize from class and have seen around campus. He is of average build and stature, around 5’9” and 180 pounds. You know a number of things about him from having overheard his conversations with others before class. You noticed that he is pretty laid back and doesn’t usually end up leading, but just doing his part. You know that he is on the intermural soccer team and goes to practices and games. You also know that he wants to be a physical therapy assistant and work for a therapist one day. You have overheard him talk about weekend plans in which he tends to do whatever his friends are doing. He recently went on a skiing trip with some friends and talked about how he liked the big hills and just tried to keep up with everyone.

101

Appendix B1: Demographics Questionnaire

Please choose the best response for each question.

What is your age? A. 18 B. 19 C. 20 D. 21 E. 22 F. 23 G. 24 H. 25 I. Other ______

What is your current year in college? A. First B. Second C. Third D. Fourth E. Fifth or above F. Graduate student G. Other ______

What is your racial identity? A. American Indian or Alaska Native B. Asian C. Black or African American D. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander E. White or Caucasian F. Multiracial G. Middle Eastern H. Other (Please write in)___

What is your ethnicity? A. Hispanic or Latino B. Not Hispanic or Latino

Which one best describes your intimate relationships/sexual orientation A. Exclusively heterosexual experiences B. Mostly heterosexual experiences C. More heterosexual than homosexual experiences D. Equally heterosexual and homosexual experiences 102

E. More homosexual than heterosexual experiences F. Mostly homosexual experiences G. Exclusively homosexual experiences H. Asexual, or Non-Sexual

Have you ever participated in a sexual assault prevention or risk reduction program? A. Yes B. No If yes, how long ago? ______

How do you identify? A. Male B. Female C. FTM (female-to-male) D. MTF (male-to-female) E. Intersex F. Genderqueer/Androgynous G. Other (please fill in): ______

103

Appendix B2: Barriers to Sexual Assault Bystander Intervention (BSABI)

Please use the scale to indicate how much you agree with each statement. Your honesty is extremely important and valued. Results are only meaningful if people answer truthfully. Remember: your answers are anonymous. Note: Sexual assault occurs when sexual contact proceeds without full consent.

1=strongly disagree, 4=neither agree nor disagree, 7=strongly agree.

1. At a party or bar, I am probably too busy to be aware of whether someone is at risk for sexual assault. 2. In a party or bar situation, I find it hard to tell whether a guy is at risk for sexually assaulting someone. 3. In a party or bar situation, I think I might be uncertain as to whether someone is at-risk for being sexually assaulted. 4. Even if I thought a situation might be high in sexual assault risk, I probably wouldn’t say or do anything if other people appeared unconcerned. 5. Even if I thought someone was at risk for being sexually assaulted, I would probably leave it up to others to intervene. 6. If I saw someone I didn’t know was at risk for being sexually assaulted, I would leave it up to his/her friends to intervene. 7. I am less likely to intervene to reduce a person’s risk of sexual assault if I think she/he made choices that increased their risk. 8. If a person is dressed provocatively, or acts provocatively, I am less likely to intervene to prevent others from taking sexual advantage of them. 9. If a person is extremely intoxicated I am less likely to intervene to prevent others from taking sexual advantage of them. 10. If a person is dressed provocatively, or acts provocatively, I feel less responsible for preventing others from taking sexual advantage of them. 11. I am more likely to intervene to prevent sexual assault if I know the potential victim than if I do not. 12. I am more likely to intervene to prevent sexual assault if I know the person that may be at risk for committing sexual assault than if I do not know him. 13. Although I would like to intervene when a guy’s sexual conduct is questionable, I am not sure I would know what to say or do. 14. Even if I thought it was my responsibility to intervene to prevent sexual assault, I am not sure I would know how to intervene. 15. I am hesitant to intervene when a man’s sexual conduct is questionable because I am not sure other people would support me. 16. Even if I thought it was my responsibility to intervene to prevent a sexual assault, I might not out of a concern I would look foolish.

104

Appendix B3: Likelihood of Intervention Scale (LIS)

In the situation outlined above, how likely would you be to do each of the following things? Note: different actions may best apply to different points in the scenario (e.g., "try to talk to the drunk girl" as they are walking up the stairs vs. "knocking on the door" after the door is closed) 1= strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree

1. Do nothing; it’s none of my business 2. Stay out of it 3. Leave 4. Ask other people what they think about the situation 5. Look for the drunk girl’s friends to tell them about it 6. Look for the sober male’s friends to tell them about it 7. Tell someone else to go check on the person 8. Call the police 9. Tell the host of the party 10. Knock on the door 11. Try to talk to the drunk girl 12. Ask the drunk girl if she is okay 13. Try to talk to the sober male 14. Confront the sober male 15. Offer to walk the drunk girl home 16. Other (please write in any other actions you would be likely to take).

105

Appendix B4: Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale-Revised (BOIS)

You will be asked to indicate how frequently you witnessed a number of situations that are relevant to college social experiences. You should think about situations you witnessed in person or had direct access to (not on T.V. or movies).

You will also be asked how often you intervened or tried to help in situations you observed. Sometimes people do not intervene for a variety of reasons, but other times, people choose to intervene. There are many ways people can intervene, including direct ways (e.g., confronting someone) or indirectly (e.g., finding others to help). Here are some examples of ways people might intervene: "I spoke up against sexist comments" "I refused to participate in an activity in which girl's appearances were ranked and rated" "I checked in with someone who looked drunk when she went to a room with someone else" "When someone told me they were sexually assaulted, I let them know I was available for help and support" "I confronted someone when I heard rumors that he forced sex on someone"

1. I heard sexist jokes 2. I heard a sexist comment 3. I witnessed an activity in which girls’ appearances were ranked /rated 4. I saw commercials that depict violence against women 5. I heard someone use the words “ho,” “bitch,” or “slut” to describe girls. 6. I heard someone talking about women in sexually degrading ways. 7. I heard a professor explain that women like to be raped 8. I heard someone yelling and fighting 9. I heard what sounded like yelling and fighting through the walls of my dorm/residence 10. I saw a couple get in a heated argument 11. I saw a couple. The man’s fist was clenched and his partner looked upset. 12. I saw a woman being shoved or yelled at by a man 13. I saw someone grabbing, pushing or insulting their partner 14. I suspected friends of engaging in behaviors that are abusive to others 15. I thought a friend was in an abusive relationship 16. I saw someone at a party/bar who had too much to drink 17. I saw a drunk person get left behind 18. I saw a person pressuring someone to leave a bar or party with them 19. I saw someone at a party/bar who was passed out being approached or touched by someone or by a group of people 20. I saw a man talking to a woman at a bar. He was sitting very close to her and by the look on her face I could see she was uncomfortable 106

21. I saw someone who looked drunk/intoxicated go to a room with someone else at a party 22. I saw someone’s drink get spiked with a drug 23. I heard someone plan to give someone alcohol or drugs to get sex 24. I saw/heard about a friend who was hooking up with someone who was passed out 25. I saw a person trying to take advantage of someone’s intoxicated state to have sex 26. I saw someone doing things that might meet the definition of sexual assault 27. I saw someone possibly committing a sexual assault 28. I suspected a friend had been sexually assaulted 29. I heard that a teammate, roommate, fraternity brother, or sorority sister had been accused of sexual violence 30. I heard rumors that a friend forced sex on someone 31. I heard that a friend had committed a rape 32. I heard an acquaintance talking about forcing someone to have sex with them 33. Someone told me that they had sex with a person who was passed out or did not give consent. 34. I knew of information about an incident of sexual violence 35. My roommate or friend said that they had an unwanted sexual experience 36. Someone else told me that they had had an unwanted sexual experience 37. A friend told me they were sexually assaulted

107

Appendix B5: Subjective Norms to Intervene-Likelihood of Intervention Scale (SNI-LIS)

In the situation outlined above, how much do you think your good friends would disapprove or approve of you if you were to take each of the following actions: 1= totally disapprove and 7= totally approve

108

Appendix B6: Subjective Norms to Intervene: Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale-Revised (SNI-BOIS)

Imagine that you witnessed the following situations. Please indicate how much you think your good friends would disapprove or approve of you if you were to intervene in each of the following situations. 1=totally disapprove, 4=neutral, 7=totally approve.

1. You hear sexist jokes 2. You hear a sexist comment 3. You witness an activity in which girls’ appearances were ranked /rated 4. You see commercials that depict violence against women 5. You hear someone use the words “ho,” “bitch,” or “slut” to describe girls. 6. You hear someone talking about women in sexually degrading ways. 7. You hear a professor explain that women like to be raped 8. You hear someone say “they deserved to be raped” 9. You hear someone yelling and fighting 10. You hear what sounds like yelling and fighting through the walls of your dorm/residence 11. You see a couple get in a heated argument 12. You see a couple. The man’s fist is clenched and his partner looks upset. 13. You see a woman being shoved or yelled at by a man 14. You see someone grabbing, pushing or insulting their partner 15. You suspect friends of engaging in behaviors that are abusive to others 16. You think a friend is in an abusive relationship 17. You see someone at a party/bar who had too much to drink 18. You see a drunk person get left behind 19. You see a person pressuring someone to leave a bar or party with them 20. You see someone at a party/bar who is passed out being approached or touched by someone or by a group of people 21. You see a man talking to a woman at a bar. He is sitting very close to her and by the look on her face I can see she is uncomfortable 22. You see someone who looked drunk/intoxicated go to a room with someone else at a party 23. You see someone’s drink get spiked with a drug 24. You hear someone plan to give someone alcohol or drugs to get sex 25. You see/hear about a friend who is hooking up with someone who is passed out 26. You see a person trying to take advantage of someone’s intoxicated state to have sex 27. You see someone doing things that might meet the definition of sexual assault 28. You see someone possibly committing a sexual assault 29. You suspect a friend has been sexually assaulted 30. You hear that a teammate, roommate, fraternity brother, or sorority sister had been accused of sexual violence 109

31. You hear rumors that a friend forced sex on someone 32. You hear that a friend committed a rape 33. You hear an acquaintance talking about forcing someone to have sex with them 34. Someone told you that they had sex with a person who was passed out or did not give consent. 35. You know of information about an incident of sexual violence 36. Your roommate or friend said that they had an unwanted sexual experience 37. Someone else told you that they had had an unwanted sexual experience 38. A friend told you they were sexually assaulted

110

Appendix B7: Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale- Self Report (LSAS-SR)

This measure assesses the way that social anxiety plays a role in your life across a variety of situations. Read each situation carefully and answer two questions about that situation. The first question asks how anxious or fearful you feel in the situation. The second question asks how often you avoid the situation. If you come across a situation that you ordinarily do not experience, imagine "what if you were faced with that situation," and then, rate the degree to which you would fear this hypothetical situation and how often you would tend to avoid it due to anxiety. Please base your ratings on the way that the situations have affected you in the last week. When rating your anxiety, 0=no anxiety, 1=mild anxiety, 2=moderate anxiety, 3=severe anxiety. When rating your avoidance due to anxiety: 0=never avoid (0%), 1=occasionally avoid (1-33%), 2=often avoid (33-67%), 3=usually avoid (67-100%).

1. Telephoning in public 2. Participating in small groups 3. Eating in public places 4. Drinking with others in public places 5. Talking to people in authority 6. Acting, performing or giving a talk in front of an audience 7. Going to a party 8. Working while being observed 9. Writing while being observed 10. Calling someone you don’t know very well 11. Talking with people you don’t know very well 12. Meeting strangers 13. Urinating in a public bathroom 14. Entering a room when others are already seated 15. Being the center of attention 16. Speaking up at a meeting 17. Taking a test 18. Expressing a disagreement or disapproval to people you don’t know very well 19. Looking at people you don’t know very well in the eyes 20. Giving a report to a group 21. Trying to pick up someone 22. Returning goods to a story 23. Giving/throwing a party 24. Resisting a high-pressure salesperson

111

Appendix B8: Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS)

For each statement, please select the appropriate numbered response on the scale provided to indicate the degree to which you feel the statement is characteristic of you. The rating scale is as follows: 0=not at all characteristic or true of me, 1=slightly characteristic or true of me, 2=moderately characteristic/true of me, 3=very characteristic or true of me, and 4=extremely characteristic or true of me.

1. I get nervous if I have to speak with someone in authority (teacher, boss). 2. I have difficulty making eye contact with others. 3. I become tense if I have to talk about myself or my feelings. 4. I find it difficult mixing comfortably with the people I work with. 5. I find it easy to make friends of my own age. 6. I tense up if I meet an acquaintance in the street. 7. When mixing socially, I am uncomfortable. 8. I feel tense if I am alone with just one person. 9. I am at ease meeting people at parties, etc. 10. I have difficulty talking with other people. 11. I find it easy to think of things to talk about. 12. I worry about expressing myself in case I appear awkward. 13. I find it difficult to disagree with another’s point of view. 14. I have difficulty talking to attractive persons of the opposite sex. 15. I find myself worrying that I won’t know what to say in social situations. 16. I am nervous mixing with people that I don’t know well. 17. I feel I’ll say something embarrassing when talking. 18. When mixing in a group, I find myself worrying I will be ignored. 19. I am tense mixing in a group. 20. I am unsure whether to greet someone I know only slightly.

112

Appendix B9: Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (BFNE)

Read each of the following statements carefully and indicate how characteristic it is of you. Select the appropriate numbered response on the scale provided to indicate how characteristic the statement is of you where 1=not at all characteristic, 2=slightly characteristic, 3=moderately characteristic, 4=very characteristic, and 5=extremely characteristic.

1. I worry about what other people will think of me even when I know it doesn’t make a difference. 2. I am unconcerned even if I know people are forming an unfavorable impression of me. 3. I am frequently afraid of other people noticing my shortcomings. 4. I rarely worry about what kind of impression I am making on someone. 5. I am afraid that others will not approve of me. 6. I am afraid that people will find fault with me. 7. Other people’s opinions of me do not bother me. 8. When I am talking to someone, I worry about what they may be thinking about me. 9. I am usually worried about what kind of impression I make. 10. If I know someone is judging me, it has little effect on me. 11. Sometimes I think I am too concerned with what other people think of me. 12. I often worry that I will say or do the wrong things.

113

Appendix B10: Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale (FPES)

Read each of the following statements carefully and select the appropriate numbered response on the scale provided to indicate the degree to which you feel the statement is characteristic of you. For each statement, respond as though it involves people that you do not know very well. Rate each situation from 0 to 9 where 0=not at all true, 4=somewhat true, and 9=very true

1. I am uncomfortable exhibiting my talents to others, even if I think my talents will impress them. 2. It would make me anxious to receive a compliment from someone that I am attracted to. 3. I try to choose clothes that will give people little impression of what I am like. 4. I feel uneasy when I receive praise from authority figures. 5. If I have something to say that I think a group will find interesting, I typically say it. 6. I would rather receive a compliment from someone when that person and I were alone than when in the presence of others. 7. If I was doing something well in front of others, I would wonder whether I was doing “too well.” 8. I generally feel uncomfortable when people give me compliments. 9. I don’t like to be noticed when I am in public places, even if I feel as though I am being admired. 10. I often feel under-appreciated and wish people would comment more on my positive qualities.

114

Appendix B11: Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Perpetration (SES-SFP)

The following questions concern your sexual experiences. We know that these are personal questions, so we do not ask your name or other identifying information. Your information is completely confidential. We hope that this helps you to feel comfortable answering each question honestly.

Place a check mark in the box showing the number of times each experience has happened. If several experiences occurred on the same occasion—for example, if one night you told someone lies and had sex with someone who was drunk, you would check both boxes a and c. Please consider situations you experienced since age 14 (starting on your 14th birthday).

1. I fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against the private areas of someone’s body (lips, breast/chest, crotch or butt) or removed some of their clothes without their consent (but did not attempt sexual penetration) by: a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about them, making promises about the future I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring them after they said they didn’t want to. b. Showing displeasure, criticizing their sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force after they said they didn’t want to. c. Taking advantage when they were too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening. d. Threatening to physically harm them or someone close to them. e. Using force, for example holding them down with my body weight, pinning their arms, or having a weapon. 2. I had oral sex with someone or had someone perform oral sex on me without their consent by: a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about them, making promises about the future I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring them after they said they didn’t want to. b. Showing displeasure, criticizing their sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force after they said they didn’t want to. c. Taking advantage when they were too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening. d. Threatening to physically harm them or someone close to them. e. Using force, for example holding them down with my body weight, pinning their arms, or having a weapon. 3. I put my penis (men only) or I put my fingers or objects (all respondents) into a woman’s vagina without her consent by: a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about them, making promises about the future I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring them after they said they didn’t want to. 115

b. Showing displeasure, criticizing their sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force after they said they didn’t want to. c. Taking advantage when they were too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening. d. Threatening to physically harm them or someone close to them. e. Using force, for example holding them down with my body weight, pinning their arms, or having a weapon. 4. I put my penis (men only) or I put my fingers or objects (all respondents) into someone’s butt without their consent by: a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about them, making promises about the future I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring them after they said they didn’t want to. b. Showing displeasure, criticizing their sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force after they said they didn’t want to. c. Taking advantage when they were too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening. d. Threatening to physically harm them or someone close to them. e. Using force, for example holding them down with my body weight, pinning their arms, or having a weapon. 5. Even though it did not happen, I TRIED to have oral sex with someone or make them have oral sex with me without their consent by: a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about them, making promises about the future I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring them after they said they didn’t want to. b. Showing displeasure, criticizing their sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force after they said they didn’t want to. c. Taking advantage when they were too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening. d. Threatening to physically harm them or someone close to them. e. Using force, for example holding them down with my body weight, pinning their arms, or having a weapon. 6. Even though it did not happen, I TRIED to put my penis (men only) or I tried to put my fingers or objects (all respondents) into a woman’s vagina without her consent by: a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about them, making promises about the future I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring them after they said they didn’t want to. b. Showing displeasure, criticizing their sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force after they said they didn’t want to. c. Taking advantage when they were too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening. d. Threatening to physically harm them or someone close to them. e. Using force, for example holding them down with my body weight, pinning their arms, or having a weapon. 116

7. Even though it did not happen, I TRIED to put my penis (men only) or I tried to put my fingers or objects (all respondents) into someone’s butt without their consent by: a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about them, making promises about the future I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring them after they said they didn’t want to. b. Showing displeasure, criticizing their sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force after they said they didn’t want to. c. Taking advantage when they were too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening. d. Threatening to physically harm them or someone close to them. e. Using force, for example holding them down with my body weight, pinning their arms, or having a weapon.

117

Appendix B12: Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV)

The following questions concern sexual experiences that you may have had that were unwanted. We know that these are personal questions, so we do not ask your name or other identifying information. Your information is completely confidential. We hope that this helps you to feel comfortable answering each question honestly.

Place a check mark in the box showing the number of times each experience has happened to you. If several experiences occurred on the same occasion—for example, if one night someone told some lies and had sex with you when you were drunk, you would check both boxes a and c. Please consider situations you experienced since age 14 (starting on your 14th birthday).

1. Someone fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against the private areas of my body (lips, breast/chest, crotch or butt) or removed some of my clothes without my consent (but did not attempt sexual penetration) by: a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about me, making promises about the future I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring me after I said they didn’t want to. b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn’t want to. c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening. d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me. e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a weapon. 2. Someone had oral sex with me or made me have oral sex with them without my consent by: a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about me, making promises about the future I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring me after I said they didn’t want to. b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn’t want to. c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening. d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me. e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a weapon. 3. If you are male, check this box and skip to item 4 A man put his penis into my vagina, or someone inserted fingers or objects without my consent by: a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about me, making promises about the future I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring me after I said they didn’t want to. 118

b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn’t want to. c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening. d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me. e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a weapon. 4. A man put his penis into my butt, or someone inserted fingers or objects without my consent by: a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about me, making promises about the future I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring me after I said they didn’t want to. b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn’t want to. c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening. d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me. e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a weapon. 5. Even though it did not happen, someone TRIED to have oral sex with me, or make me have oral sex with them without my consent by: a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about me, making promises about the future I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring me after I said they didn’t want to. b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn’t want to. c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening. d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me. e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a weapon. 6. If you are male, check this box and skip to item 7 Even though it did not happen, a man TRIED to put his penis into my vagina, or someone tried to stick in fingers or objects without my consent by: a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about me, making promises about the future I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring me after I said they didn’t want to. b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn’t want to. c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening. d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me. e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a weapon. 119

7. Even though it did not happen, a man TRIED to put his penis into my butt, or someone tried to stick in objects or fingers without my consent by: a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about me, making promises about the future I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring me after I said they didn’t want to. b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn’t want to. c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening. d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me. e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a weapon.

120

Appendix B13: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C)

1. How often do you have a drink containing alcohol? a. Never b. Monthly or less c. 2-4 times a month d. 2-3 times a week e. 4 or more times a week

2. How many drinks containing alcohol do you have on a typical day when you are drinking? a. 1 or 2 b. 3 or 4 c. 5 or 6 d. 7 to 9 e. 10 or more

3. How often do you have six or more drinks on one occasion? a. Never b. Less than monthly c. Monthly d. Weekly e. Daily or almost daily

121

Appendix B14: Drinking Due to Social Anxiety Questionnaire (DDSAQ)

Below you will find a number of statements concerning emotions, thoughts and behaviors that may or may not occur in the context of alcohol use. Please read the following statements carefully and indicate how characteristic the statement was of you during the last month according to the scale. Also, please indicate how frequently each situation occurred in the past 30 days. Scale: 0=not at all characteristic or true of me and 4=extremely characteristic or true of me

1. I felt safer when interacting with strangers after drinking alcohol 2. After drinking alcohol, I was less nervous when starting a conversation with a person I did not now well 3. I drank alcohol so I wouldn’t have to think about what impression I made on others 4. When I was in a diner or a restaurant, I drank alcohol to feel safer and less nervous 5. I drank to overcome my shyness 6. I drank alcohol to feel less self-conscious when I was the center of attention 7. Drinking helped me to suppress feelings of inferiority 8. I drank alcohol so I could talk more freely and be more relaxed with other people 9. I drank alcohol in order to be less nervous during an exam 10. I drank alcohol to fight my fear of criticism and rejection by others 11. When I had to talk to people in authority (teachers, superiors), I drank alcohol in order to be less nervous. 12. I drank alcohol so I would have less anxiety when speaking in public 13. Alcohol helped me to be less self-conscious in social situations or whenever I expected to be socially active 14. I drank alcohol in order to self-medicate my fear of embarrassing myself in front of others 15. I drank alcohol in order to be less tense in performance situations 16. After drinking, I felt better able to express my opinions and convictions to others 17. Alcohol helped me to be less tense and nervous whenever I had to eat with unfamiliar people 18. When I was unable to avoid uncomfortable social situations, I sometimes drank alcohol in order to be less anxious 19. Alcohol helped me to have less anxiety when talking to unfamiliar people 20. I drank alcohol in order to feel less nervous and tense in group situations 21. Drinking helped me to interact with others in a more relaxed way 22. After drinking I was better able to share my feelings and thoughts with a person of the opposite sex 23. I drank alcohol in order to feel less self-conscious or tense when speaking in public 122

24. It was easier for me to approach an attractive person of the opposite sex after drinking alcohol 25. I was better able to get to know people after drinking alcohol 26. I drank alcohol to be less self-conscious or tense while giving a speech in front of an audience 27. At parties or official social gatherings I drank alcohol in order to be more relaxed and less tense 28. After drinking alcohol I was better able to hold my ground with authorities or people I was afraid of.

123

Appendix B15: Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability-Short Form (MCSDS-SF)

DIRECTIONS: Listed below are thirteen statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read each item and decide whether the statement is true or false as it pertains to you personally.

1. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged 2. I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way 3. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability 4. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they were right 5. No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener. 6. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone 7. I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake 8. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget 9. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable 10. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own 11. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others 12. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me 13. I have never deliberately said something that hurt somebody

124

Appendix B16: Manipulation Checks

Ratings of the Potential Perpetrator in the Vignette

Please rate the male in the situation on the following attributes, where 0=not at all, and 7=completely.

1. How dominant is he? 2. How popular is he? 3. How much of a leader is he? 4. How competitive is he? 5. How trustworthy is he? 6. How similar is he to yourself?

Applicability of the Vignette

Based on your social experiences in the college setting, please rate the scenario on the following attributes. 1=not at all and 7=completely.

1. How realistic is this scenario? 2. How relevant is this scenario? 3. Considering the potential for sexual assault, how risky is this scenario?

125

Appendix C1: Instructional Manipulation Check

Most modern theories of behavior recognize the fact that behavior does not take place in a vacuum. Individual personality traits and knowledge, along with situational variables can greatly impact a person's behavior. In order to facilitate our research on college student behavior we are interested in knowing certain factors about you. Specifically, we are interested in whether you actually take the time to read the directions; if not, then some of our surveys and manipulations that rely on careful reading of instructions will result in inaccurate data. So, in order to demonstrate that you have read the instructions, please ignore the question about the personality items below. Instead, mark "Other" and type "I read it" into the text box. Then click the >> button to proceed to the next section. Thank you very much.

Which of these personality traits best describe you and your personality? (click all that apply)

a. Open to new experiences b. Conscientious c. Extraverted d. Agreeable e. Neurotic f. Risk-seeking g. Perfectionist h. Impulsive i. High self-esteem j. Warm k. Other (please write in) ______

126

Appendix C2: Trap Questions

Inserted at the end of the Social Norms-Likelihood of Intervention Scale (SN-LIS):

Mark “totally disapprove” for this one. a. Totally disapprove b. Disapprove c. Somewhat disapprove d. Neither approve nor disapprove e. Somewhat approve f. Approve g. Totally approve

Inserted at the end of the Social Norms-Bystander Opportunity and Intervention Scale (SN-BOIS):

Mark “disapprove” for this one a. Totally disapprove b. Disapprove c. Somewhat disapprove d. Neither approve nor disapprove e. Somewhat approve f. Approve g. Totally approve

Inserted at the end of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability-Short Form (MCSD-SF):

I am a student at Ohio University a. True b. False

I read the questions in this survey carefully a. True b. False

127

Appendix D1: Ohio University Adult Consent Form

Title of Research: Difficult Situations: College Student Experiences and Reactions

Researchers: Bethany Neczypor, M.S. and Christine Gidycz, Ph.D.

You are being asked to participate in research. For you to be able to decide whether you want to participate in this project, you should understand what the project is about, as well as the possible risks and benefits in order to make an informed decision. This process is known as informed consent. This form describes the purpose, procedures, possible benefits, and risks. It also explains how your personal information will be used and protected. Once you have read this form and your questions about the study are answered, you will be asked to participate in this study. You should print copy of this document to keep for your records.

Explanation of Study This study is being done to examine behavior of college students in social situations. If you choose to participate, you will be asked to read about hypothetical social situations and fill out several questionnaires about your behavior, attitudes, traits, and experiences. Please consider your comfort level as some of the questions are explicit and ask about your own sexual experiences. Participation is voluntary, and you may stop responding and withdraw from the study at any point without penalty. You should not participate in this study if you are under the age of 18 years old. Your participation should take approximately 2 hours. You will receive 2 credits for this session.

Risks and Discomforts During this study, you will be asked questions about personal and sexual information. Please consider your comfort level with these types of questions before agreeing to participate in the study. Some individuals may experience mild emotional discomfort, lasting for a short time. Participation is voluntary, and you may stop responding and withdraw from the survey at any point without penalty. Further, it is recommended that you take the survey in a private location where others cannot see the screen. Upon completion, it is recommended that you clear your browser history.

The following are a list of resources that may be used if you experience emotional discomfort during the survey. We recommend that you print these out prior to beginning the survey.

Ohio University Counseling and Psychological Services: 740-593-1616 Hudson Health Center, 3rd Floor 2 Health Center Drive Athens, Ohio 45701 128

Tri-County Mental Health Services: 740-592-3091 90 Hospital Drive Athens, Ohio 45701

OU Psychology and Social Work Clinic 740-593-0902 Ohio University 002 Porter Hall Athens, Ohio 45701

Benefits Your participation will provide you the opportunity to learn, first-hand, the process of data collection for a psychological experiment. The study is important to science and society because it will help investigators and psychologists learn more about the lives of college students and understand the factors that influence helping behavior in difficult situations. Furthermore, the findings may inform policies or programs that will enhance the safety and wellbeing of students.

Confidentiality and Records

Your survey responses are anonymous, meaning that any information you provide to the experimenters cannot be tied to you, and will not be shared with anyone including university officials, parents, police, or friends/partners. No individual names will be used in reporting the results of the study. All survey responses are stored on a secure server.

However, given that the surveys can be completed from any computer (e.g., personal, work, school), we are unable to guarantee the security of the computer on which you choose to enter your responses, and any form of communication over the Internet carries a minimal risk of loss of confidentiality. To enhance security, you are advised delete the browsing history when the survey is completed, as well as complete the survey in a private manner, away from peers and distractions. If other individuals have access to your computer they might be able to view your web browsing history, including a link to this survey if browsing history is not cleared. For information on how to delete your browsing history, you can visit http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000510.htm. After completing the survey and reaching the Debriefing form, you will be prompted to clear your browsing history.

Additionally, while every effort will be made to keep your study-related information confidential, there may be circumstances where this information must be shared with: * Federal agencies, for example the Office of Human Research Protections, whose responsibility is to protect human subjects in research; * Representatives of Ohio University (OU), including the Institutional Review Board, a committee that oversees the research at OU

129

Compensation As compensation for your time/effort, you will receive 2 course credits.

Contact Information If you have any questions regarding this study, please contact the investigator Bethany Neczypor ([email protected]; 740-593-1088) or the faculty advisor Christine A. Gidycz, Ph.D. ([email protected]; 740-593-1092).

If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact Dr. Chris Hayhow, Director of Research Compliance, Ohio University, (740)593-0664 or [email protected].

By agreeing to participate in this study, you are agreeing that: • you have read this consent form (or it has been read to you) and have been given the opportunity to ask questions and have them answered; • you have been informed of potential risks and they have been explained to your satisfaction; • you understand Ohio University has no funds set aside for any injuries you might receive as a result of participating in this study; • you are 18 years of age or older; • your participation in this research is completely voluntary; • you may leave the study at any time; if you decide to stop participating in the study, there will be no penalty to you and you will not lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.

130

Appendix D2: Debriefing Form

Thank you for your participation this study. The responses you gave to the survey questionnaires will contribute to knowledge about unwanted sexual experiences on college campuses and the behavior of bystanders (i.e., third party witnesses to a situation). We are specifically interested in investigating how social anxiety influences bystander behavior. We are also interested in determining how social dominance affects bystander behavior. In this study, you read a hypothetical scenario in which a seemingly sober male lead a seemingly intoxicated female to a bedroom. You were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In one condition, the male was described as being socially dominant. In the other condition, the male was described as being less socially dominant. We were interested in determining whether the social dominance of the male affected how you responded to the situation.

Bystander intervention programs are one strategy used to reduce the rates of unwanted sexual experiences including sexual assault on college campuses. By better understanding factors that promote and inhibit intervention, we can tailor programs accordingly. Hopefully, our efforts will inform these programs and help make Ohio University and other college campuses safer.

Because the success of this research relies highly on future participants being unaware of the hypotheses, we ask that you please do not mention the nature of this study to any potential participant for the remainder of this academic year. Thank you for your cooperation!

As a reminder, all of your questionnaire responses are anonymous. It is recommended that you clear your browser history at this time for security purposes. For information on how to delete your browsing history, you can visit http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000510.htm. If you have any further questions regarding the nature of this study, or would like to request details of the results of the study, please feel free to contact one of the following:

Primary Researcher: Bethany Neczypor, M.S. Porter Hall – Room 056 740-593-1088 [email protected]

Faculty Researcher: Christine A. Gidycz, Ph.D. Porter Hall - Room 231 740-593-1092 [email protected]

131

In addition, if you are concerned about the study materials used or questions asked and wish to speak with a professional, or if you would like more information or reading material on this topic, please contact one of the following resources:

Ohio University Counseling and Psychological Services: 740-593-1616 Hudson Health Center, 3rd Floor 2 Health Center Drive Athens, Ohio 45701

Tri-County Mental Health Services: 740-592-3091 90 Hospital Drive Athens, Ohio 45701

OU Psychology and Social Work Clinic: 740-593-0902 Ohio University 002 Porter Hall Athens, Ohio 45701

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Thesis and Dissertation Services ! !