Bystander Intervention Programs

What Are They, How Do They Work, and What Is Their Value?

Bystander intervention training programs typically build on the work of Latané and Darley (1970), which provides a framework for understanding bystander behavior. Furthermore, training programs take participants through each of the five stages that bystanders encounter when intervening (as described above), explore options for intervention (such as the 3 D’s: direct intervention, distraction, delegation or Four Ds: direct, distract, delegate, and delay), and provide opportunities for participants to role-play these skills (Banyard et al., 2005; Berkowitz, 2002; Coker et al., 2015). These trainings have most frequently been deployed with undergraduate students as prevention programing related to sexual assault. Bystander intervention training programs typically teach participants to (a) recognize problematic situations, (b) effectively intervene to reduce the likelihood of harm, and (c) speak out against attitudes that support or condone problematic behavior (Bush et al., 2019).

These skills-based programs generally work from the premise that all members of a community have a role to play in preventing and disrupting harm, approaching participants as people who are potential allies, as opposed to those who are potential targets or committing the harm (Banyard et al., 2004). This prevention strategy shows promise both for its utility in developing tangible skills to interrupt individual harms and for its role in helping shift culture through establishing and reinforcing healthy social norms (Leone et al., 2018).

The National Academies’ 2018 Sexual Harassment of Women report notes that prevention tools, such as bystander intervention training, can help individuals and institutions identify and respond to biases that turn into problematic behaviors. Bystander intervention programs have the potential to create change in an institutional climate by adequately preparing individuals who may witness sexual harassment to recognize and disrupt problematic behavior, demonstrating intolerance for harassment at the community level (Banyard, 2015; Elias-Lambert et al., 2022; Holland et al., 2016). These training programs typically equip participants with the skills to intervene in situations by creating awareness of harassment and uncivil environments, motivating participants as potential bystanders to step in and take action, giving participants options for how to intervene, and providing resources to support these actions (Feldblum and Lipnic, 2016). In the workplace setting, bystander intervention training programs have been identified as showing “significant promise for preventing harassment in the workplace” (Feldblum and Lipnic, 2016). Among college students, education on bystander intervention has shown to increase knowledge and understanding of sexual harassment, minimize beliefs of rape myths, and increase the chances for bystander intervention behavior to occur (Banyard et al., 2004, 2007; NASEM, 2018).

The Ecological Framework of Bystander Intervention

A bystander’s ecosystem greatly influences whether or how an individual intervenes. Building on previous ecological system theories (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Heise, 1998), research has suggested that a bystander intervention framework should consider not only an individual’s most direct environment, or the peers associated in the bystander’s microsystem (i.e., those involved in a proximal situation), but also an individual’s entire ecosystem and all the interconnected relationships that play a role in that ecosystem

(Banyard, 2011, 2015; McMahon, 2015). Beyond the peer circle, individuals play a role and are influenced by those in their exosystems and macrosystems, that is, their “communities and the wider society” (Banyard, 2011). For instance, faculty members influence (and are influenced by) peer faculty members, in addition to their department chair (exosystem) and the overarching values and culture of their institution (macrosystem).²

The relationship between the individual and those involved with the various layers of their ecosystem can hinder or promote bystander intervention (Banyard, 2011; McMahon, 2015; McMahon et al., 2017). For example, individuals can be more willing to intervene if peer expectations are to discourage inappropriate behaviors. On a larger scale, if trust between an individual and those in the community exists, including trust that leaders in the community will support intervention and resist retaliation, bystanders are more likely to intervene (Banyard, 2011; McMahon, 2015). Hence, a holistic understanding that accounts for “aspects of different cultures, communities, or peer groups that may promote or hinder” (Banyard, 2011, p. 226) bystander behavior can help with developing effective and robust bystander intervention training programs. Specifically, program staff developing training programs can account for five major factors that have been shown to promote bystander behavior across the various environmental levels of the ecosystem (McMahon, 2015):

• Social norms (bystanders are more likely to intervene if the harassing behavior contradicts established norms)
• Sense of community (such as increased levels of trust and social cohesion within the community that encourages intervention)
• Prosocial modeling (modeling of bystander behaviors by others, including leaders and/or those with more power)
• Policies and accountability cues (policies and practices that hold individuals accountable also discourage sexual harassment and can set a tone that encourages intervention)
• Physical environment (the architectural design and social organization of the community can promote bystander intervention behavior)

Complexities of Institutional Ecosystems

Examining the academic workspace using an ecological framework can reveal the complexities of the environments that faculty, staff, and graduate students exist in and how this can affect their ability or willingness to intervene (i.e., graduate or medical students and power imbalances that may serve as a barrier to their intervening). Perception of the power differences in the various relationships encountered in the academic workplace can change based on different identities (gender, race, class) or vulnerabilities

__________________

(Cole, 2009; Fitzgerald and Cortina, 2018; Kleinman and Thomas, 2023; Sutton et al., 2021). For instance, a department chair who is a Black woman may have more career-based power in a department meeting, but then hold less power in a hallway conversation with a faculty member who is a white man. Changes in relative power across different scenarios can discourage an individual to intervene because of lack of trust in leadership supporting bystander interventions, changes in social norms, and the isolated environments that prevent bystanders from feeling supported by their community (Haynes-Baratz et al., 2021; Linder, 2018). These effects parallel the five factors, listed above, that influence bystander behavior.

The fluidity in power dynamics in the academic workplace, resulting from changes in positions (e.g., department chair appointments), can also affect bystander behavior because leadership changes can change culture (and subsequently social norms), trust in the community, policies and practices, and more (Elias-Lambert et al., 2022; Haynes-Baratz et al., 2021). For instance, if a department chair demonstrates microaggression³ but is going to return to a faculty role in the coming months, a bystander may opt not to intervene knowing that the power dynamic will soon change.

Finally, the social isolation resulting from the academic environments where individuals are separated from the rest of the institution and siloed in their workplace environment (e.g., the lab, a department or unit) can also hinder bystander intervention. The culture, and even physical design, of faculty, staff, and graduate students’ academic environments typically prioritizes individual scholarship and minimal collaboration, thereby contributing to still-siloed, isolated workplace environments (Haynes-Baratz et al., 2021; Kolowich, 2010). Not only does the siloed nature of workplaces discourage interdisciplinary collaboration and research (Kolowich, 2010), but it also minimizes opportunities for institutional accountability and support when faculty, staff, and graduate students face uncivil environments and harmful situations that may require intervention (Haynes-Baratz et al., 2021). Furthermore, the isolation and lack of community support experienced by these individuals can make them feel less inclined to intervene. For instance, when addressing microaggressions, which are hard to identify because they are subtle and nuanced, faculty have shown it helpful to have peers or others in the community verify that a microaggression has occurred (Haynes-Baratz et al., 2021) to intervene; however, the siloed nature of faculty, staff, and graduate students’ environments can make it challenging for them to properly identify such aggressions and feel compelled to intervene. Research shows that historically minoritized college students were more likely to intervene as bystanders if training programs were backed by institutional policies and response services that strove to provide support, increase trust, and protect against retaliation (McMahon, et al., 2020). Similar to how college students benefit from services demonstrating the support of the institution, those who are particularly isolated in the academic environment (such as faculty, staff, and graduate students) could also benefit from having resources and support services that address the nature of their environment and are specifically catered to them.

__________________

Institutional Examples for Addressing the Challenges of Bystanders by Accounting for the Ecosystem

This paper aimed to identify and explore existing bystander intervention programs that took the complexities and power dynamics of the higher education ecosystem into account. The authors’ approach was to review the annual reporting of actions taken and descriptions of work by the members of the Action Collaborative on Preventing Sexual Harassment in Higher Education and the Partner Network comprising about 75 different institutions. After identifying the set of relevant programs, program staff were asked to answer a set of questions developed by the authors (Box 1-1). Seven institutions were identified as having bystander intervention programs that were specifically developed for faculty, staff, and graduate students, and who provided answers to the questions. This set of seven are listed below:

• Harvard University (Box 1-2)
• University of California, Irvine (Box 1-3)
• Rutgers University (Box 1-4)
• Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (Box 1-5)
• Boston University (Box 1-6)
• University of California, San Diego (Box 1-7)
• Wellesley College (Box 1-8)

The questionnaire was developed by the authors of this paper as a mechanism to consistently interview the program staff on what was required to initiate a program, how their program was developed, and how it was evaluated. The goal was to provide useful information from those who have developed programs to other institutions interested in building and launching their own programs, recognizing that tailored approaches are needed for each specific context. This paper ends with a list of research areas that could fill gaps in identifying best practices for developing and implementing the training programs, determining the characteristics of an effective training program, and assessing the effectiveness of bystander intervention training programs (both for those who have taken the training and its effect on reducing sexual harassment within an institution).

Responses to the questions are summarized in the following sections and organized into four categories, or topic areas:

1. “Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students” – This category details various characteristics of the program that are specific to faculty, staff, and graduate students (e.g., having a focus on microaggressions and/or power differentials). It also highlights training methods, support services before or after the program, and specific ways the program engages those groups in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the program.
2. “Institutional Support: Who and What Is Needed” – This category highlights who is involved in the program, what offices and leaders are needed, how leaders show support, and other resources that the institution can provide to facilitate the program (e.g., coordination across offices, sources of funding).
3. “Program Evaluations” – This category gives an overview of the surveys and/or evaluation methods used for the program.
4. “Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications” – This category highlights next steps institutions may have planned to expand their program and/or methods that program staff have flagged that could be helpful for other institutions.