Barriers to sexual harassment bystander intervention in Ecuadorian universities

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive data for main continuous measures.

	N	Mean	Standard deviation	Min	Max	Skewness	Std. error skewness	Kurtosis	Std. error kurtosis
Rape Myth	114	1.92	1.20	0.94	7.18	2.45	0.27	6.71	0.45
Seriousness	119	184	77.40	0	270	−0.62	0.21	−0.89	0.42
Bystander Opportunity	129	10.10	5.94	0	26	0.46	0.21	−0.40	0.42
Bystander Difficulty	119	82.30	19	18	96	−1.84	0.22	2.88	0.44
Bystander Likelihood	129	177	59.90	0	260	−0.88	0.21	0.487	0.42

Table 2. Zero-order correlations among main study variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Age	–
2. Rape Myth	−.09	–
3. Seriousness	−.12	.02	–
4. Bystander Opportunity	−.17	.14	.06	–
5. Bystander Difficulty (Reflected)	−.05	.26**	.08	.02	–
6. Bystander Likelihood (Reflected)	−.03	.22*	−.48***	.04	.23*	–

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 3. Spearman’s rank correlations with demographic measures and sexual coercion.

	Gender (female = 1)	Student/Staff (student = 1)	Location (highland = 1, coast = 0)	Perpetration	Victimization
2. Rape Myth	−.22*	.16	−.11	.33***	.05
3. Seriousness	.06	.13	−.06	−.09	−.01
4. Bystander Opportunity	−.11	.12	−.03	.36***	.66***
5. Bystander Difficulty (Reflected)	.20*	.01	.08	.08	.07
6. Bystander Likelihood (Reflected)	.10	.06	−.06	.15	.03

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 4. Simultaneous multiple regression for bystander difficulty and bystander likelihood.

	Bystander Difficulty (Reflected)			Bystander Likelihood (Reflected)
Predictor	beta	SE	Stand. beta	Beta	SE	Stand. beta
Intercept	0.90	0.39	8.10	1.06
Gender (1 = female)	0.71	0.24	.28**	1.34	0.65	.19*
Rape Myth	0.81	0.25	.31***	1.34	0.69	.18
Seriousness	0.01	0.01	.09	−0.02	0.00	-.41***
Perpetration	0.13	0.15	.09	0.81	0.39	.20*
Victimization	0.00	0.18	.00	−0.13	0.46	-.03
Bystander Opportunity	−0.01	0.02	-.04	0.02	0.06	.04
Bystander Difficulty (Reflected)	0.47	0.25	.16
R^2	.15**	.31***

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.