









































75

Graduate Student Journal of Psychology
2023, Vol. 20

Copyright 2023 by the Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology
Teachers College, Columbia University

Educating College Students about 
Dating Violence Bystander Behaviors:

 Evaluating an Innovative Animated Intervention 
Micah Herman1 & Karen M. O’Brien2

1University at Albany
2University of Maryland, College Park

 Dating violence, or the threat or presence of phys-
ical, emotional, sexual, financial, or cyber abuse in a 
romantic relationship, affects college students at dis-
tressing rates, with between 10% and 50% experiencing 
at least one form of dating violence (Kaukinen, 2014). 
Such violence puts those who experience dating vio-
lence at high risk for substance abuse, suicidality, risky 
sexual behavior, and eating disorders (Rakovec-Felser, 
2014). Researchers pointed to the primacy of peers, 
substance use, limited relationship experience, being 
away from home, and the ubiquity of social media as 
significant in the perpetuation of dating violence on 
college campuses (Duval et al., 2020; Libertin, 2017). 
To reduce dating violence on college campuses, by-
stander intervention programs have been developed to 
teach students how to identify dating violence and in-
tervene effectively (Banyard et al., 2007; Moynihan & 
Banyard, 2008). The purposes of this study were to re-
vise an online bystander intervention educational pro-
gram (STOP Dating Violence; O’Brien et al., 2021) and 
to conduct a randomized controlled trial to test the ef-
fectiveness of the revised intervention. Specifically, the 
STOP Dating Violence intervention was converted into 
an engaging animated video format and then tested for 
its effectiveness. Ultimately, this intervention could 
reduce rates of dating violence on college campuses.
Theoretical Framework
 The Model of Bystander Behavior (Latane & 
Darley, 1970) provides the theoretical foundation for 
this study. A bystander is defined as any person who 

witnesses or learns of an incident of dating violence. 
Bystander behavior is engagement in actions to stop 
a given behavior. The individual and cultural im-
pact of bystander behaviors is understood by sociol-
ogists as a kind of feedback loop in which individu-
al people are shaped by the way that they participate 
in social systems, which in turn shapes the systems 
themselves (Katz et al., 2011). Bystander behaviors 
are spread through college student’s social networks, 
ultimately resulting in community-level changes in 
social norms (Coker et al., 2015). Moreover, when by-
stander behaviors are not performed, bystanders im-
plicitly reinforce abusive behavior (Katz et al., 2011). 
 The Model of Bystander Behavior (Latane & 
Darley, 1970) described the contingencies that are re-
quired for bystanders to become involved: bystanders 
must be aware of the problematic situation, perceive 
it as an emergency, decide that they have a responsi-
bility to take action, and determine what help they are 
able to provide. Also, multiple psychological processes 
may impede bystander interventions, such as diffu-
sion of responsibility (i.e., bystanders believing that 
others will bear the responsibility for intervention), 
evaluation apprehension (i.e., bystanders worrying 
about acting in ways that may harm their reputation 
in the eyes of other bystanders like offering to help a 
victim and having the victim’s boyfriend be angry or 
think poorly of the bystander), and pluralistic igno-
rance (i.e., bystanders believing that dating violence 
situations are not emergencies based on the inaction of 

Due to the extensively social nature of college campuses, peer intervention is a valuable tool for the reduction of 
college dating violence. While bystander training programs are becoming a common tool for addressing student 
welfare concerns on college campuses, there is little research evaluating the efficacy of these interventions. The pur-
poses of this study were to revise an online bystander intervention program (STOP Dating Violence; O’Brien et al., 
2021) and conduct a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of this revised intervention. Specifically, 
the intervention was modified and converted into an engaging animated video and then tested for its effectiveness. 
College students (N=335) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) the STOP intervention, (2) 
a website containing information about dating violence, and (3) a control condition. Students who viewed the 
STOP Dating Violence video intervention had the greatest knowledge of bystander interventions when compared 
to the website and control conditions. Thus, the STOP Dating Violence video has potential to successfully ed-
ucate undergraduates about appropriate bystander interventions for dating violence in a cost-effective manner. 
 Keywords: dating violence, college students, online intervention, bystander



76

other bystanders who are witnessing the abusive inter-
action; Latane & Darley, 1970). Theory suggests that 
bystanders are more likely to report engaging in by-
stander behaviors if they feel a greater sense of respon-
sibility and self-efficacy, and believe that the benefits of 
intervening outweigh the costs (Jouriles et al., 2016).
 Another relevant theoretical consideration is 
the ecological model of bystander intervention (Ban-
yard, 2011), which seeks to expand upon Latane 
and Darley’s model by considering community-lev-
el variables. This model emphasizes the importance 
of macrolevel factors in promoting change among 
individuals, highlighting the importance of inter-
ventions that are easily widely disseminated for the 
promotion of increased engagement in bystander in-
tervention against dating violence on college campuses.
Bystander Interventions to Reduce Dating Vio-
lence on College Campuses
 Bystander intervention for dating violence 
evolved from the development of bystander inter-
vention tools for sexual violence. The bystander ap-
proach was first applied to the prevention of campus 
violence in the mid-1990s (Katz, 1994). Researchers 
pointed to community norms as playing a signifi-
cant role in the perpetuation of violence, especial-
ly on college campuses (DeKeseredy et al., 2018). 
A large-scale shift in cultural and social norms was 
needed, requiring actions (e.g., bystander interven-
tions) from the campus community (Banyard, 2003).
 Bystander intervention educational programs are 
relatively new in the field of dating violence prevention, 
but their outcomes are encouraging. However, these 
programs are few in number and inconsistent in terms 
of their potential reach and cost-efficiency (Shorey et 
al., 2012). Most of the programs designed for college 
campuses are in-person interventions focused on pre-
venting sexual assault rather than dating violence. Re-
searchers tested the efficacy of bystander intervention 
programs and noted significant limitations. For exam-
ple, Project PEACE, which is an in-person intervention 
for college students, had mixed findings (Jaffe et al., 
2017). A study examining the Men’s Project, an educa-
tional program for college men, found that when men 
had a support group, they were able to use bystander 
strategies while challenging their sexist environment 
(Barone et al., 2007). However, this program was limit-
ed by its focus on male students. A program by Moyni-
han and Banyard (2008) that targeted campus Greeks 

and athletes, the populations with the highest rates of 
sexual violence on college campuses, successfully im-
proved scores from pretest to posttest on six relevant 
outcome variables. Also, a program called Bringing 
in the Bystander increased the likelihood of helping, 
confidence in bystander behaviors, and taking respon-
sibility for ending college dating violence among soror-
ity women (Moynihan et al., 2011). These programs 
were limited by high costs, small sample sizes, and cir-
cumscribed target populations, suggesting the need 
for the development of effective online interventions.
 Online interventions are beneficial for college stu-
dents because they are accessible to (and convenient 
for) large numbers of students at low cost (O’Brien et 
al., 2021). In addition, online interventions have been 
shown to be effective in educating college students 
on a variety of topics (e.g., sexual assault; Devine, 
2018, substance use; Barry et al., 2016, responding 
to bereaved peers; Hill & O’Brien, 2021). Online by-
stander training programs focused on reducing dat-
ing violence also show considerable promise (Hines 
& Palm Reed, 2017). An intervention called Friends 
Helping Friends increased participants’ perceived re-
sponsibility to help, skills to act as a bystander, and 
intention to help when compared to a control group 
(Amar et al., 2015). However, this study was limited 
in its generalizability because it was only tested with 
female students and non-random group assignments. 
 A promising online intervention that was effective 
in educating college students about dating violence 
and appropriate bystander behaviors was the STOP 
Dating Violence program (O’Brien et al., 2021). Origi-
nally, the 3-component intervention was in the format 
of a Prezi slideshow, which is now a less recent medium 
for disseminating information to college students. The 
first component, “Education about Warning Signs of 
Dating Violence,” taught college students to recognize 
the warning signs of dating violence, including psycho-
logical and physical abuse (O’Brien et al., 2021). It was 
consistent with the first two steps in Latane and Dar-
ley’s (1970) Model of Bystander Behavior, which indi-
cates that becoming aware of a problematic situation 
and perceiving the situation as an emergency are the 
first steps to intervention. The use of risk recognition 
as a tool in interventions against sexual assault and do-
mestic violence was well-established, but rarely applied 
to programs focused on dating violence (O’Brien et al., 
2021). Survivors of dating violence were not as likely to 

HERMAN & O’BRIEN



77

recognize danger in domestic violence vignettes as par-
ticipants who had not experienced such violence (Witte 
& Kendra, 2010). The inability of those who experi-
ence dating violence to recognize risk supports the need 
for increased bystander intervention training efforts. 
 The second component, “Education Intended to 
Eradicate Psychological Barriers to Helping,” educat-
ed bystanders about impediments to action according 
to Latane and Darley’s (1970) model: diffusion of re-
sponsibility, evaluation apprehension, and pluralistic 
ignorance. The third and final component, “Education 
Regarding Desired Bystander Behaviors,” provided 
bystanders with a series of actions that they can use to 
assist those who experience dating violence. This com-
ponent addressed recommendations to emphasize the 
role of bystanders in reducing dating violence (Shorey 
et al., 2012). Research on dating violence and sexual 
assault prevention identified bystander education that 
teaches students to proactively interfere when they wit-
ness potentially harmful or controlling behaviors as key 
to prevention of abusive behaviors (Banyard, 2011). 
Current Study and Hypothesis 
  The purposes of this study were to revise the 
STOP Dating Violence bystander intervention pro-
gram (O’Brien et al., 2021) and conduct a randomized 
controlled trial to test the effectiveness of this revised 
intervention. After the intervention was updated and 
converted from a Prezi to a video format, this study as-
sessed the effectiveness of the updated intervention by 
evaluating the degree to which individuals exposed to 
the intervention learned desired bystander behaviors 
when compared to those who did not receive the video 
intervention. One group of participants that did not 
view the video intervention looked at a website con-
taining information about intimate partner violence 
to simulate self-directed information-seeking, while 
another group completed an unrelated filler task. We 
hypothesized that participants exposed to the video 
intervention would have more knowledge about by-
stander interventions when compared to students who 
viewed related information on a website and individu-
als in a no-intervention control group.

Method 
Participants
 An a priori statistical analysis was calculated us-
ing the G*POWER v3 software (Faul et al., 2007) 
to determine the number of participants needed to 

achieve statistical power of 0.95, a medium effect 
size (f = 0.25), with an overall α = 0.05 for a regres-
sion. All assumptions for an ordinary least squares 
regression were met. The results suggested that a 
total sample size of 204 participants was needed.
 Initially, 456 undergraduate students accessed the 
online survey via Qualtrics; 449 students met inclusion 
criteria (e.g., proficiency in English, between 18 and 
24 years old, and enrolled at our large mid-eastern uni-
versity), and provided informed consent. Participants 
who did not complete at least 85% of the items were 
removed from the sample (42 individuals, n = 407). 
Then, the 72 participants who failed to provide the cor-
rect responses to two validity check items (i.e., “Please 
select ‘strongly disagree’ for this item” and “Please select 
‘strongly agree’ for this item”) were not included in 
the sample, resulting in a total of 335 valid responses. 
There were 122 participants in the control condition, 
120 in the intervention condition, and 93 in the web-
site condition (see Figure 1). There were fewer valid 
responses in the website group as a number of partici-
pants in that condition failed to complete at least 85% 
of the items, perhaps due to the length of the time (10 
minutes) that they were asked to review the website.
 The average age of the participants was 19.43 (SD 
= 1.13), and the majority identified as women (73.1%) 
and straight (89.9%). Most were single (63%), and 
had not experienced dating abuse (77%) or violence 
in their families of origin (83.3%). Students were en-
rolled in a wide range of college majors with the top 
three being Psychology (35.8%), Information Scienc-
es (15.5%), and Biology-related (10.7%). Additional 
demographic information can be found in Table 1.
Procedure
 After receiving approval from the University In-
stitutional Review Board, participants were recruited 
through the Department of Psychology subject pool 
(consisting of students from across the university who 
were enrolled in an introductory psychology course), 
flyers, and social media, where they received a link to 
a Qualtrics survey. Students who accessed the survey, 
met the inclusion criteria, and provided consent were 
invited to complete a demographic questionnaire and 
then a pretest survey assessing their knowledge about 
appropriate bystander interventions. Participants 
then were randomly assigned to one of three condi-
tions. The intervention group watched the 7-minute 
STOP Dating Violence video intervention. The web

COLLEGE DATING VIOLENCE



78

HERMAN & O’BRIEN

site group scrolled through loveisrespect.org, a website 
containing information about dating violence includ-
ing warning signs of abuse in an intimate relationship 
and steps for supporting friends and peers who may be 
experiencing intimate partner violence for 10 minutes. 
The control group was asked to complete filler tasks 
(i.e., write an essay about your favorite college course). 
Participants in the intervention group were unable to 
move past the page containing the video until seven 
minutes had elapsed, and those in the website group 
were unable to move past the website page until 10 
minutes had elapsed. Then, participants in every con-
dition completed a posttest survey made up of the same 
items as the pretest survey. All participants were pro-
vided with information about two domestic violence 
hotlines and their campus counseling center upon 
completion of the study. The procedural pathways for 
participants in each condition are provided in Figure 2. 
Students received one research credit toward a psychol-
ogy course requirement for completing the survey. 
STOP Dating Violence Intervention
 The STOP Dating Violence intervention was cre-
ated to educate college students about recognizing 
dating violence and intervening in situations of dating 
violence (O’Brien et al., 2021). As described previous-
ly, the intervention has three components, the first and 
third of which were adapted to create the STOP Dating 
Violence animated video intervention. The modifica-
tions made to the STOP Dating Violence intervention 
can be conceptualized through the FRAME model, 
which systematizes the modifications by considering 
who is involved in the process, what is modified, the 
level of delivery and context in which modifications 
are made, and the nature of the content modification 
(Stirman et al., 2013). The modifications were made 
by a team of two researchers, one of whom led the de-
velopment of the original STOP Dating Violence inter-
vention. The content and context of the intervention 
was modified through the conversion from Prezi to 
animated video, simplifying and modernizing the for-
mat for participants engaging with the intervention.
 The second component was not included in the 
video to shorten the length of the intervention and to 
focus on the effectiveness of education about warning 
signs of dating violence and bystander behaviors. For 
this study, the presentation first was modified to shorten 
the content to maximize participant engagement. Spe-
cifically, multiple-choice questions were removed from 

the first component and presented as open-ended ques-
tions that were answered by the narrator. For example, 
the narrator posed the following: “Now that we have 
described dating violence, we want you to imagine your 
best friend has been dating someone for three months. 
What are some “red flags” or warning signs of dating 
violence that you might notice?” After a brief pause, sev-
eral common red flags were described by the narrator.
 Consistent with the original intervention, infor-
mation was delivered in a brief lecture format and then 
applied to vignettes in which dating violence occurred 
in typical college settings (e.g,, in a residence hall, in 
a shared apartment, and at the campus gym) so that 
students saw how the bystander behaviors could be 
used in real-life situations. The vignettes were creat-
ed by a team of researchers (comprised of professors 
and graduate students in psychology, several of whom 
had experience working in shelters for abused women 
and their children) and were informed by the dating 
violence literature to depict different dimensions of 
dating violence occurring among a diverse sample of 
people (O’Brien et al., 2021). The team conducted a 
thorough literature review about dating violence, by-
stander interventions, and the best practices for online 
interventions before writing and editing the scripts. 
Important information was repeated, and time was 
provided for participants to think and respond to nar-
rator questions about the STOP steps. For example, in 
the video intervention, the narrator says the following:

“OK, over the last month you noticed that one 
of your close friends has stopped coming to pick-
up basketball games on Friday nights. When 
you see him at the gym, you ask why he hasn’t 
been around. He says that he’s really busy – 
and that his girlfriend wants him to spend 
all of his time with her. He tells you that he 
tried to break up with her but she threatened 
to kill herself. He feels stuck but he would feel 
really guilty if something bad happened to 
her. How might you respond to this situation?”

At this point, there is a pause in the video. Then, the nar-
rator applies each step of the STOP model to this vignette.
 For this study, a video was created using online an-
imation software (Vyond), the modified script and voi-
ceover recording. The characters shown in the vignettes 
were of diverse ethnic backgrounds and represented a 
range of sexualities and dating preferences. The video 
intervention can be found at go.umd.edu/DatingViolence



79

COLLEGE DATING VIOLENCE

Warning Signs and go.umd.edu/DatingViolenceHowToHelp).
Measures
Knowledge regarding appropriate interventions
 Eight items from the Knowledge of Appropriate 
Bystander Interventions scale (O’Brien et al., 2021) 
were used to measure knowledge regarding appropri-
ate bystander behaviors outlined in the STOP Dating 
Violence intervention. Responses were provided on a 
6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) 
to 6 (strongly agree), e.g., “It’s important to help in a 
dating violence situation even if it means that I might 
be in danger.” Items 1, 2, 3 and 6, which were incor-
rect statements about appropriate bystander inter-
ventions, were reverse scored and the responses were 
summed to create an index of knowledge about rec-
ommended bystander intervention practices from 
the STOP Dating Violence intervention. High scores 
indicated greater knowledge about general bystand-
er behaviors and those emphasized in the STOP in-
tervention. In prior research, the reliability of the 
8-item measure was not calculated because the items 
assessed different dimensions of knowledge and were 
not expected to correlate. Support for validity was 
found in a prior study as students who complet-
ed the STOP Dating Violence intervention scored 
the highest on this measure (O’Brien et al., 2021). 
Demographics 
 Participants also responded to items assessing gen-
der, age, sexual orientation, major, relationship status, 
the length of their relationship, and whether they expe-
rienced violence in their families or relationship abuse.
Analyses
 Responses that did not meet the inclusion crite-
ria (n = 6), did not pass the validity checks (n = 72), 
and did not complete at least 85% of the items (n = 42) 
were removed before data analysis. The means, stan-
dard deviations, and ranges for the pre and posttest 
scores on the Knowledge of Appropriate Bystander 
Interventions scale were calculated and are provided 
in Table 2. An ordinary least squares regression was 
used to test the hypothesis by examining differences in 
scores on the measure of knowledge about appropriate 
bystander interventions at posttest across conditions. 
The main explanatory variable was the experimental 
condition, with pretest score as a linear control. The 
model included the interaction of condition with pre-
test score; posttest score was the dependent variable. 
An alpha level of .05 was used to test for significance.

 Significant differences were found among condi-
tions for scores on the measure assessing knowledge 
of appropriate bystander interventions (R2=.522, F 
(5, 332) = 71.904, p <.01, partial η2 = .319). Bonfer-
roni-adjusted pairwise comparisons indicated that the 
intervention condition had a higher mean than those 
in the website group (by 1.92 points, 95% CI [1.00, 
2.83]) and the control group (by 4.82 points, 95% CI 
[3.97, 5.67]), and that the website group had a higher 
mean compared to the control group (by 2.90 points, 
95% CI [1.99, 3.81]). All comparisons were signifi-
cant at p < .001. To summarize, students in the inter-
vention condition had the most knowledge regard-
ing appropriate bystander interventions at posttest.

Discussion
 Findings from this study suggested that the up-
dated STOP Dating Violence video intervention was 
effective in educating undergraduate students about 
appropriate bystander interventions. Participants who 
viewed the STOP Dating Violence video intervention 
had the greatest knowledge of appropriate bystander 
interventions at posttest when compared to partici-
pants who were in the control and website conditions. 
This finding is important because it indicates that the 
video intervention effectively aids college students in 
learning about desired bystander behaviors in dating 
violence situations. Moreover, this finding represents 
an important first step in the future process of chang-
ing campus cultures. If students can be educated about 
warning signs of dating violence and how to intervene 
when it occurs, the potential exists for them to dis-
seminate this knowledge and these behaviors through 
social networks, thus contributing to communi-
ty-wide changes in social norms (Coker et al., 2014).
 Additionally, a large portion of data collection 
took place during campus closures due to COVID-19. 
The success of the intervention during this time 
demonstrated that educational videos may be valuable 
tools for sharing information regardless of student 
and campus location. Should these findings be repli-
cated, the STOP Dating Violence video intervention 
may serve as a low-cost and effective educational tool 
to reduce rates of dating violence on college campuses.
Limitations
 There are several important limitations of this 
study. First, the sample was predominantly comprised 
of straight women, perhaps because a significant por



80

HERMAN & O’BRIEN

tion of participants were recruited through the Depart-
ment of Psychology study pool which contains more 
women than men. It is important to ensure that the 
intervention works well for all genders and sexualities. 
While the intervention utilized inclusive language and 
provided examples of many different kinds of relation-
ships, it is necessary to assess its effectiveness for a broader 
population to ensure that the results are generalizable. 
 Additionally, no constructs were assessed besides 
knowledge of appropriate bystander interventions. 
Constructs like intention to intervene or self-effi-
cacy may be important in gauging the effectiveness 
of the intervention, as knowledge alone may not 
be enough of a catalyst for bystander action. Other 
facets of participant perspectives could play valu-
able roles in determining the effectiveness of the 
measure including general knowledge of dating vi-
olence, core beliefs about gender and sexuality, sus-
ceptibility to social desirability, and life experience. 
 It also is important to note that participants in 
the intervention group were asked to think about 
how to apply what they learned about appropriate 
bystander behaviors to vignettes presented in the in-
tervention video, while participants in the website 
group were not asked to reflect on what they learned. 
It is possible that inviting the participants to apply 
the STOP model to hypothetical situations contrib-
uted to the retention of the information. Thus, some 
variability in knowledge scores across groups could 
have occurred because of the lack of opportunities 
to apply the STOP model in the website condition.
 Another limitation of this study was that par-
ticipant knowledge was assessed about bystander in-
terventions in generalized dating violence situations 
rather than in specific circumstances. The vignettes 
provided in the video were specific and nuanced, and 
it would be valuable to assess how participants would 
apply their knowledge to different forms of dating 
violence and the complexities associated with spe-
cific situations (e.g., monitoring a partner who had 
cheated on them previously). Similarly, we did not 
include a measure of participant engagement; future 
research should assess the degree to which partici-
pants were engaged in the shortened video version 
when compared to the longer Prezi presentation. 
 Finally, increased knowledge about dating vio-
lence and desired bystander interventions may not re-
sult in actual bystander behaviors in real-life settings. 

Numerous factors including social pressure, substance 
use, or other variables may impact motivation to inter-
vene in dating violence situations. Relatedly, psycho-
logical processes that impede engagement in bystander 
behaviors were not explicitly addressed by the inter-
vention. Inclusion of these factors could encourage 
college students to challenge thoughts that limit in-
volvement and engage more fully in bystander actions.
Future Research Directions
 Research is needed to further evaluate whether the 
STOP Dating Violence video intervention is more ef-
fective than the original Prezi presentation. Addition-
ally, it is important to assess whether knowledge gained 
from bystander training interventions, including the 
STOP Dating Violence video intervention, translates 
into actual bystander behaviors in real-life dating vio-
lence situations. Conducting this research is challeng-
ing because it requires students to have witnessed dat-
ing violence. In addition, students may not be aware 
that what they have witnessed or heard about was dat-
ing violence, or they may be unable to remember ex-
actly what occurred. A promising mechanism for eval-
uating bystander behaviors in real-life dating violence 
situations is the use of diary collection methods which 
involve repeated participant self-reports for a specified 
amount of time. Such methodology would enable par-
ticipants to immediately log their experiences of any 
encountered dating violence onto their phones or com-
puters, allowing for more accurate recall of the event 
and their reactions to incidents of dating violence.
 A similarly challenging but important future di-
rection is to examine the barriers and facilitators asso-
ciated with bystander behaviors in real dating violence 
situations. Many factors ranging from social norms to 
core values could play a role in making it easier or more 
challenging to intervene. Information about salient 
barriers and facilitators could be collected in conjunc-
tion with self-reports about bystander behaviors in 
real-life dating violence situations. After participants 
report having seen dating violence and the actions 
that they took, they could then respond to measures 
asking them about what factors facilitated and hin-
dered intervention. These factors must be studied so 
that researchers can develop educational program-
ming focused on the most important factors that 
impact the decisions of college student bystanders.
 Another important future direction is to see 
whether participation in this intervention affects 



81

students’ ability to recognize dating violence in 
their relationships and to leave an abusive rela-
tionship. An ideal and most effective intervention 
would allow students to recognize dating violence 
in their lives as well as in the lives of their peers.
 Finally, it is important that future interventions 
address how the nuances of specific situations may 
change bystander perceptions of dating violence 
and plans to intervene or engage in helpful bystand-
er behaviors. Real-life situations of dating violence 
are likely to be complex and confusing for bystand-
ers who are considering taking action. To counteract 
blaming those who experienced dating violence and 
lacked bystander confidence as a result of contex-
tual nuance, interventions should emphasize that 
the behaviors described as dating violence call for re-
sponsible bystander action under all circumstances.
Conclusion
 To conclude, dating violence is a common and 
harmful occurrence on college campuses. College 
students are often unsure how to provide assistance 
to peers experiencing dating violence. The STOP 
Dating Violence video intervention may serve as a 
cost-effective, engaging, and informative education-
al tool that teaches students how to recognize and 
respond to dating violence. It is our hope that this 
research will contribute to efforts to increase by-
stander behaviors, ultimately resulting in reduced 
incidents of dating violence on college campuses.

References
Amar, F.A., Tuccinardi, N., Heislein, J., & Simpson, 

S. (2015). Friends Helping Friends: A nonran-
domized control trial of a peer-based response to 
dating violence. Nursing Outlook, 63(4), 496-503. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2015.01.004 

Banyard, V.L. (2003). Bystander education: Bringing a 
broader community perspective to sexual violence 
prevention. Journal of Community Psychology, 
32(1), 61-79. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.10078

Banyard, V.L. (2011). Variation in bystander behav-
ior related to sexual and intimate partner  
violence prevention: Correlates in a sample of 
college students. Psychology of Violence, 1(4), 287-
301. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023544

Banyard, V.L. (2011). Who will help prevent sexual vi-
olence: Creating an ecological model of bystander 
intervention. Psychology of Violence, 1(3), 216-229. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023739 
Banyard, V.L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E.G. 

(2007). Sexual violence prevention through by-
stander education: An experimental evaluation. 
Journal of Community Psychology, 35(4), 463-48. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20159

Barone, R.P., Wolgemuth, J.R., & Linder, C. (2007). 
Preventing sexual assault through engaging col-
lege men. Journal of College Student Develop-
ment, 48(5), 585-594. https://doi.org/10.1353/
csd.2007.0045

Barry, A. E., Hobbs, L. A., Haas, E. J., & Gibson, G. 
(2016). Qualitatively assessing the experiences of 
college students completing AlcoholEdu: Do par-
ticipants report altering behavior after interven-
tion? Journal of Health Communication, 21(3), 
267-275. https://doi/10.1080/10810730.2015.1
018645

Coker, A.L., Fisher, B.S., Bush, H.M., Swan, S.C., 
Williams C.M., Clear, E.R., & DeGue, S.  
(2015). Evaluation of the Green Dot Bystander 
Intervention to Reduce Interpersonal  Vi ol e n ce 
Among College Students Across Three Campus-
es. Violence Against Women,  21(12), 1507-1527. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214545284

DeKeseredy, W. S., Hall-Sanchez, A., & Nolan, J. 
(2018). College campus sexual assault: The con-
tribution of peers’ proabuse informational sup-
port and attachments to abusive peers. Violence 
Against Women, 24(8), 922-935https://doi.
org/10.1177/1077801217724920

Devine, M. P. (2018). Bystander self-efficacy to prevent 
sexual assault: An evaluation of the impacts of on-
line and in-person bystander intervention training 
(Order No. 10812454). Available from ProQuest 
Dissertations & Theses Global. (2063091693). 
https://libproxy.albany.edu/login?url=https://
www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/by-
stander-self-eff icacy-prevent-sexual-assault/
docview/2063091693/se-2

Duval, A., Lanning, B.A., & Patterson, M.S. (2020). 
A systematic review of dating violence risk 
factors among college students. Trauma, Vi-
olence, & Abuse, 21, 567-585. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1524838018782207

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. 
(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power 
analysis program for the social, behavioral, and

COLLEGE DATING VIOLENCE



82

HERMAN & O’BRIEN

biomedical sciences. Behavior research meth-
ods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/
bf03193146 

Hill, E.M., & O’Brien, K.M. (2021). Improving un-
dergraduate students’ responses to bereaved peers: 
An innovative online intervention. Journal of 
Prevention and Health Promotion. https://doi.
org/10.1177/26320770211014066

Hines, D.A. & Palm Reed, K. M. (2017). Bystander 
prevention of sexual and dating violence: An ex-
perimental evaluation of online and in-person 
bystander intervention programs. Partner Abuse, 
8(4), 331-346. https://doi.org/10/1891/1946-
6560.8.4.331.

Jaffe, A.E., Schreier, A., & DiLillo, D. (2017). Fea-
sibility and initial evaluation of project  
PEACE: An intervention for college students at 
risk for dating violence.  Partner Abuse, 8, 281-
314. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.8.3.291

Jouriles, E.N., Rosenfield, D., Yule, K., Kelli, S., & 
Sargent, R. (2016). Predicting high-school stu-
dents’ bystander behavior in simulated dating 
violence situations. Journal of Adolescent Health, 
58(3), 345-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jadohealth.2015.11.009

Katz, J. (1994). Mentors in violence prevention play-
book. Boston: Center for the Study of Sports in 
Society.

Katz, J., Heisterkamp, A., & Fleming, W. M. (2011). The 
social justice roots of the Mentors in Violence Pre-
vention model and its application in a high school 
setting. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 684–702. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211409725

Kaukinen, C. (2014). Dating violence among college 
students: The risk and protective factors.  
Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 15(4), 283-296. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/152483801452132 

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive 
bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York (N.Y.): 
Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Libertin, A. (2017, November 30). The truth about 
domestic violence on college campuses. Healing 
Abuse Working for Change. https://hawcdv.
org/the-truth-about-domestic-violence-on-col-
lege-campuses/

Moynihan, M.M. & Banyard, V.L. (2008). Commu-
nity responsibility for preventing sexual violence: 
A pilot study with campus Greeks and intercolle-

giate athletes. Journal of Prevention and Interven-
tion in the Community, 36(2), 23-38.  h t t p s : / /
doi.org/10.1080/10852350802022274 

Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L., Arnold, J. S., 
Eckstein, R. P., & Stapleton, J. G. (2011). Sis-
terhood may be powerful for reducing sexual 
and intimate partner violence: An evaluation 
of the Bringing in the Bystander in-person 
program with sorority members. Violence 
Against Women, 17(6), 703-719. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1077801211409726

O’Brien, K.M., Sauber, E.W., Kearney, M.S., Ve-
naglia, R.B., & Lemay, E.P. (2021). Evaluating 
the effectiveness of an online intervention to 
educate college students about dating violence 
and bystander responses. Journal of Interperson-
al Violence, 36, NP7516-NP7546. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0886260519829769

Rakovec-Felser, Z. (2014). Domestic violence and 
abuse in intimate relationship from public health 
perspective. Health Psychology Research, 2(3), 
1821. https://doi.org/10.4081/hpr.2014.1821 

Shorey, R.C., Zucosky, H., Brasfield, H., Febres, J., 
Cornelius, T.L., Sage, C., & Stuart, G.L.  
(2012). Dating violence prevention program-
ming: Directions for future interventions.  
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(4), 289-293.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.001

Witte, T. H., & Kendra, R. (2010). Risk recogni-
tion and intimate partner violence. Journal 
of  Interpersonal Violence, 25(12), 2199–2216. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354880 



83

COLLEGE DATING VIOLENCE

Table 1

Demographics (n = 335)



84

HERMAN & O’BRIEN



85

COLLEGE DATING VIOLENCE

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, and Correlations Among the Measures 

Note. *Correlation is significant at the .01 level.



86

Figure 1

Participant Assignment to Conditions

456 recruited through 
undergraduate Psychology 

courses

Met inclusion criteria and 
consented to participate      

(n = 449)

Finished over 85% of 
quantitative items     

 (n = 407)

Valid responses    
 (n = 335)

Intervention condition
 (n = 120)

Website condition
 (n = 93)

Control condition
 (n = 122)

Did not meet inclusion 
criteria 
(n = 6) 

Did not finish over 85% of 
quantitative items

(n = 42) 

Did not respond correctly to 
both validity check items

(n = 72) 

HERMAN & O’BRIEN



87

COLLEGE DATING VIOLENCE

Figure 2

Procedural Pathways

All participants completed a 
pretest assessing knowledge of 

appropriate bystander 
interventions

The control group completed 
a filler task (writing a brief
 essay about their favorite 

college course)

The intervention group 
watched the 7-minute STOP 

Dating Violence video
 intervention

The website group scrolled 
through a website containing 

information about dating 
violence for 10 minutes

All participants completed a 
posttest made up of the same 

questions as the pretest

All participants were provided 
with information about two 
domestic violence hotlines 

and their campus counseling 
center upon completion 

of the study


