A Power, Gender, and Network Conscious Review of College Student Bystander Behaviors to Prevent Sexual Assault

Background and Purpose: Despite the legal requirement that colleges and universities in the USA provide students bystander intervention education in gender-based violence (GBV) prevention programming, studies suggest these interventions do not reduce violence perpetration and may shift harm from majority to minority students. Recent calls to reimagine bystander intervention training have advocated for power-conscious, gender-transformative programming; bystander intervention programs have also been critiqued for oversimplifying social hierarchies and networks. Indeed, while studies suggest social networks (i.e., networks of interpersonal relationships), gender norms, and power may shape bystander action in response to GBV, we are aware of no research that has provided an integrated examination of how networks, masculinity, and power shape bystander behaviors. Therefore, this review explores how social networks, masculinity, and power shape bystander behaviors related to campus sexual assault and dating violence.

Method: We conducted a convergent integrated mixed methods systematic review following JBI guidelines. Our search included multiple electronic interfaces (ProQuest, EBSCOHost, Web of Science, Scopus) and electronic databases to capture peer-reviewed literature and dissertations. Our search terms focused on bystanding related to campus GBV, interpersonal relationships, gender, and power. Our search identified 1,146 records (1,093 identified via search terms; 53 identified via hand search) that we screened in Covidence software. Studies that met our inclusion criteria were: 1) empirical studies of bystander behavior related to sexual assault or dating violence, 2) had a college-based sample or findings specific to college students, 3) had a finding with a direct connection to interpersonal relationships/social networks, gender, or power.

Results: 61 studies met our inclusion criteria. Findings suggest that bystanders are most likely to act to support friends who are experiencing harm, but that bystanders are ambivalent and act less directly when friends cause harm. Furthermore, findings suggest that men’s bystander action may function as the mobilization of rape, in that 1) while some attitudes associated with the root causes of GBV are associated with decreased bystander behaviors (e.g. valuing toughness), others are associated with increased bystander behavior (e.g., benevolent sexism), 2) bystander action is associated with status, and 3) bystander action functions to maintain a masculine hierarchy. Despite the theoretical salience of masculinity (vis-à-vis patriarchy) and power in shaping sexual-assault related outcomes, quantitative studies rarely explored systems of oppression beyond the inclusion of individual-level demographic variables in models.

Conclusion: Review findings suggest each of the explored factors, social networks, masculinity, and power, shape bystander intervention, but they are rarely studied in general—much less in a unified framework. In addition to providing a unified framework that incorporates how these extra-individual level factors shape bystander behaviors, we discuss potential approaches to understanding how bystander programs can be retooled to more clearly address the root causes of violence. Specifically, we call for prevention programming and research that interrogate how interactional accountability processes shape bystander behaviors and utilize methodological approaches capable of accounting for social networks structure and the ways in which systems of oppression shape individual interactions.