Men's Experiences of Sexual Assault Bystander Intervention Education

Background and Purpose: There is debate in the field of sexual violence bystander intervention education about how much to emphasize social identities, particularly gender, in programming. Some programs focus on gender norms that sustain campus cultures of sexual violence, while other programs intentionally do not focus on gender, assuming that men will feel less defensive about hearing prevention messages if they do not feel targeted as potential perpetrators. Investigation into other social identities, such as race, are minimal in the bystander intervention literature. The purpose of this study was to examine how college undergraduate men, many of whom were men of color, made sense of a bystander approach to sexual violence prevention on a university campus. What messages about sexual violence prevention were salient to participants and why?

Methods: We conducted four focus groups with a purposeful sample of male undergraduate students (N=24). The sample was racially diverse (38% White/Caucasian, 33% Black/African American, 17% Asian, 12% “other”). Most were upperclassman. Three focus groups were composed of self-identified “men of color;” one was composed of self-identified “White/Caucasian” men. Men in all of the groups had participated in a bystander presentation and skit during university orientation; members of two groups had also completed the day-long Green Dot sexual assault bystander training. Focus groups were asked about participation in campus bystander programs, elements of these programs that were useful/not-useful, and thoughts about how bystander programs relate to men. Transcriptions were analyzed using Dedoose 8.0 following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic approach to analysis: familiarization with data, initial coding, initial theme development, review of themes, and creation of a conceptual map with defined themes. Multiple coders, peer debriefing, and reflexivity were used to establish credibility and confirmability.

Results: The analysis yielded three interrelated themes: “…but we’re the good guys”, “statistics aren’t relevant”, and “Black men need to be careful”. Regardless of the bystander program attended, all participants believed that content was biased against men because most of the scenarios depicted men sexually assaulting women. These depictions, and the accompanying statistics, did not match what they had observed in their social lives: physical sexual assault was rare, both men and women perpetrated sexual harassment, and “good guys” like themselves were always ready to intervene if there was a problem. African American participants described frustration at the larger sociohistorical context constructing Black men as perpetrators of sexual violence, but disagreed about whether it would be productive for bystander programming to address this issue.

Conclusions and Implications: This study suggests that, despite the focus of bystander programming on proactive allies, men experience the messaging as skewed against them, painting them as perpetrators rather than the ‘good guys’ they know themselves to be. These results mirror the “othering of the rapist” found in Masters (2010) analysis of anti-rape men’s websites. Additionally, men of color report deep-seated concerns about the potential for negative repercussions of intervening. These findings suggest the need to pair bystander intervention programming with campus-wide efforts to address hegemonic masculinity and white supremacy.