![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Bystander intervention programs are a feature on college campuses; however, the effectiveness of these programs among certain subsets of men has recently been questioned. The current study examines college men’s resistance to bystander intervention efforts by investigating message fatigue as a theoretical explanation for how bystander intervention programs may fail among college men. Specifically, the current study examined both active (i.e., reactance) and passive (i.e., inattention) resistance to bystander intervention messages among a sample of college men (N = 518). Results were consistent with reactance as a mediating mechanism explaining message failure among fatigued audiences. The mediating role of inattention was not supported. Theoretical and practical implications of the current study are discussed.
Supplementary material
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website.
Notes
1. Percentages may not add up to 100% as participants were able to select one or more categories for race/ethnicity.
2. Two items were dropped due to standardized factor loadings falling below .60. See confirmatory factor analysis section for more detail.
3. “I have lost track of the amount of times I have heard that sexual assault is a serious problem” and “I have heard enough about how important it is to stop sexual assault.”
4. Based on the suggestion of a Reviewer we tested an alternative (reverse causal) model. A model with reverse ordering of the hypothesized pathways (e.g., perceived message effectiveness predicting reactance, etc.) demonstrated acceptable fit, χ2 (570, N = 492) = 1320.89, p <.001, RMSEA =.05 (90% CI:.048,.055), CFI =.94, SRMR =.09. Comparison between the hypothesized and alternative model in terms of AIC and BIC (where lower values reflect a better fitting model; see Vrieze, Citation2012) revealed a better fit for the hypothesized model (AIC = 32601.06, BIC = 33109.08) than for the alternative model (AIC = 33347.04, BIC = 33863.45).
5. Based on the suggestion of a Reviewer we tested a model with this alternative ordering (reactance as an antecedent to message fatigue rather than a consequence) in comparison to the originally hypothesized model. This alternative model demonstrated acceptable fit, χ2 (567, N = 492) = 1270.05, p <.001, RMSEA =.05 (90% CI:.050,.058), CFI =.95, SRMR =.07. There was a very slight advantage in terms of AIC and BIC for the alternative model (AIC = 32581.93, BIC = 33094.15) than for the hypothesized model (AIC = 32601.06, BIC = 33109.08).