Exploring action coils for bystander intervention: Modeling bystander consequences

References

• Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011:1–124.
   Google Scholar
• Krebs CP, Lindquist CH, Warner TD, et al. The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; 2007:1–111.
   Google Scholar
• Banyard VL, Demers JM, Cohn ES, et al. Academic correlates of unwanted sexual contact, intercourse, stalking, and intimate partner violence: An understudied but important consequence for college students. J Interpers Violence. 2017. doi:10.1177/0886260517715022.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor E, Banyard VL, Grych J, et al. Not all behind closed doors: Examining bystander involvement in intimate partner violence. J Interpers Violence. 2019;34:3915–3935.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banyard VL, Weber M, Grych J, et al. Where are the helpful bystanders? Ecological niche and victims’ perceptions of bystander intervention. J Community Psychol. 2016;44(2):214–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banyard VL. Measurement and correlates of prosocial bystander behavior: The case of interpersonal violence. Violence Vict. 2008;23(1):83–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett S, Banyard VL, Edwards K. The impact of the bystander’s relationship with the victim and the perpetrator on intent to help in situations involving sexual violence. J Interpers Violence. 2017;32(5):682–702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cares AC, Banyard VL, Moynihan MM, et al. Changing attitudes about being a bystander to violence: Translating an in-person sexual violence prevention program to a new campus. Violence Against Women. 2014;21:1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coker AL, Fisher BS, Bush HM, et al. Evaluation of the Green Dot bystander intervention to reduce interpersonal violence among college students across three campuses. Violence Against Women. 2014;1(12):1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan MM, Banyard VL, Cares AC, et al. Encouraging responses in sexual and relationship violence prevention what program effects remain 1 year later? J Interpers Violence. 2015;30(1):110–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukacena KM, Reynolds-Tylus T, Quick BL. An application of the reasoned action approach to bystander intervention for sexual assault. Health Commun. 2017;34:46–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds-Tylus T, Lukacena KM, Quick BL. An application of the theory of normative social behavior to bystander intervention for sexual assault. J Am Coll Health. 2019;67:551–559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witte TH, Casper DM, Hackman CL, et al. Bystander interventions for sexual assault and dating violence on college campuses: Are we putting bystanders in harm's way? J Am Coll Health. 2017;65(3):149–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krauss A, Jouriles EN, Yule K, et al. Adverse consequences to assisting victims of campus violence: Initial investigations among college students. J Interpers Violence. 2017. doi:10.1177/0886260517746944
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jouriles EN, Rosenfield D, Yule K, et al. Predicting high-school students’ bystander behavior in simulated dating violence situations. J Adolesc Health. 2016;58(3):345–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moschella EA, Banyard VL. Action and reaction: The impact of consequences of intervening in situations of interpersonal violence. J Interpers Violence. 2018. doi:10.1177/0886260518782983
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banyard VL. Toward the Next Generation of Bystander Prevention of Sexual and Relationship Violence: Action Coils to Engage Communities. New York, NY: Springer Briefs in Criminology; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Latané B, Darley JM. The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t he Help. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1970.
   Google Scholar
• Andrade EB, Ariely D. The enduring impact of transient emotions on decision making. Organ Behav and Hum Dec Processes. 2009;109(1):1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belschak FD, Den Hartog DN. Consequences of positive and negative feedback: The impact on emotions and extra‐role behaviors. Appl Psychol. 2009;58(2):274–303. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00336.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berinsky AJ, Huber GA, Lenz GS. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Polit anal. 2012;20(3):351–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011;6(1):3–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Banyard V, Moschella E, Grych J, et al. What happened next? Measuring consequences of bystander actions to prevent interpersonal violence. Psychol Violence. 2019. doi:10.1037/vio0000229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banyard VL, Moynihan MM, Cares AC, et al. How do we know if it works? Measuring outcomes in bystander-focused abuse prevention on campuses. Psychol Violence. 2014;4(1):101–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu L, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to unparameterized model misspecificiation. Psychol Methods. 1998;3(4):424–453.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee IA, Preacher KJ. Calculation for the test of the difference between two dependent correlations with one variable in common [Computer software]. 2013. Available at: http://quantpsy.org. Updated September, 2013. Accessed February 17, 2019.
   Google Scholar