1. Acknowledgements Olivia Fellows, Rachel White, Sharon LaRue and PEACC staff and volunteers, Brooke Pierson, Amanda Houpt, Dr. Ann Coker and colleagues, Dr. Dorothy Edwards, Jennifer Sayre, Sally Evans and the VIP center at the University of Kentucky, and Dr. Barbara Burns. Acknowledgements Olivia Fellows, Rachel White, Sharon LaRue and PEACC staff and volunteers, Brooke Pierson, Amanda Houpt, Dr. Ann Coker and colleagues, Dr. Dorothy Edwards, Jennifer Sayre, Sally Evans and the VIP center at the University of Kentucky, and Dr. Barbara Burns. Abstract The occurrence of power-based personal violence is widely spread in our society and its prevalence on college campuses threatens students’ safety every day. Tools for the prevention of violence have been developed for decades but only recently have social and community psychologists begun to explore the importance of engaging bystanders in the fight against violence. The bystander intervention model applies the knowledge about bystander effects to the field of violence prevention in order to help people develop pro- social bystander behaviors and attitudes. The 8-hour Green Dot Bystander Empowerment Training (GDBET) trained students and community members at the University of Louisville to overcome hurdles and become empowered bystanders. Through the use of pre- and post-training surveys, the current project explored potential change in self-reports of rape myth acceptance and bystander efficacy on the part of Green Dot BET participants. The study also asked participants to report active bystander behaviors they engaged in during the 12 months prior, and their level of empathy before and after the training. Most importantly, this study examined the connection between empathy (including changes in empathy) and rape myth acceptance, bystander efficacy and bystander behaviors. Thus the focus of our project was on: (1) the potential for the Green Dot BET program to improve bystanders’ attitudes and confidence in situations where the risk of sexual violence is high, and (2) the importance of empathy to these outcomes. Abstract The occurrence of power-based personal violence is widely spread in our society and its prevalence on college campuses threatens students’ safety every day. Tools for the prevention of violence have been developed for decades but only recently have social and community psychologists begun to explore the importance of engaging bystanders in the fight against violence. The bystander intervention model applies the knowledge about bystander effects to the field of violence prevention in order to help people develop pro- social bystander behaviors and attitudes. The 8-hour Green Dot Bystander Empowerment Training (GDBET) trained students and community members at the University of Louisville to overcome hurdles and become empowered bystanders. Through the use of pre- and post-training surveys, the current project explored potential change in self-reports of rape myth acceptance and bystander efficacy on the part of Green Dot BET participants. The study also asked participants to report active bystander behaviors they engaged in during the 12 months prior, and their level of empathy before and after the training. Most importantly, this study examined the connection between empathy (including changes in empathy) and rape myth acceptance, bystander efficacy and bystander behaviors. Thus the focus of our project was on: (1) the potential for the Green Dot BET program to improve bystanders’ attitudes and confidence in situations where the risk of sexual violence is high, and (2) the importance of empathy to these outcomes. Green Dot Bystander Intervention Training for Violence Prevention: Exploring Connections to Rape Myth Acceptance, Bystander Behavior & Efficacy, and Empathy Silvia Gozzini & Lora Haynes, Ph. D Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences Green Dot Bystander Intervention Training for Violence Prevention: Exploring Connections to Rape Myth Acceptance, Bystander Behavior & Efficacy, and Empathy Silvia Gozzini & Lora Haynes, Ph. D Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences Results Previous Research and Findings Bystander Research Barriers to Bystander Intervention- diffusion of responsibility, evaluation apprehension, pluralistic ignorance, confidence in skills and modeling (Darley & Latane, 1968). Bystander Prevention Intervention Bringing in the Bystander (Banyard et al., 2009) attending a 90-minute prevention program resulted in participants self-reported lower rape myth acceptance and greater bystander efficacy. Women showed more desirable outcomes then men. Green Dot Strategy (Coker et al., 2011) subjects participated in 1) a 6-hour training, 2) a 50 minute speech or 3) both, a control group was also used. Attendance to the longer training resulted in lower rape myth acceptance and higher bystander attitude and behaviors as well as higher bystander efficacy. Attending the 50 minute speech showed better outcomes than in those in the control group. Previous Research and Findings Bystander Research Barriers to Bystander Intervention- diffusion of responsibility, evaluation apprehension, pluralistic ignorance, confidence in skills and modeling (Darley & Latane, 1968). Bystander Prevention Intervention Bringing in the Bystander (Banyard et al., 2009) attending a 90-minute prevention program resulted in participants self-reported lower rape myth acceptance and greater bystander efficacy. Women showed more desirable outcomes then men. Green Dot Strategy (Coker et al., 2011) subjects participated in 1) a 6-hour training, 2) a 50 minute speech or 3) both, a control group was also used. Attendance to the longer training resulted in lower rape myth acceptance and higher bystander attitude and behaviors as well as higher bystander efficacy. Attending the 50 minute speech showed better outcomes than in those in the control group. Green Dot Bystander Empowerment Training (GDBET) “Green Dot are individual choices- that meet in a shared vision- creating the momentum of a social movement” The 8-hour training consisted of 4 modules: 1. An introduction to Green Dot- prevalence and types of violence, connection to the issue 2. Recognize Red Dots: identifying high-risk situations and skills needed to intervene. 3. Bystander: seizing self-defining moments and overcoming obstacles (3 Ds: Direct, Distract and Delegate) 4.Proactive and Reactive Green Dot Training tools include role playing, lecture, videos, and group discussions. Green Dot Bystander Empowerment Training (GDBET) “Green Dot are individual choices- that meet in a shared vision- creating the momentum of a social movement” The 8-hour training consisted of 4 modules: 1. An introduction to Green Dot- prevalence and types of violence, connection to the issue 2. Recognize Red Dots: identifying high-risk situations and skills needed to intervene. 3. Bystander: seizing self-defining moments and overcoming obstacles (3 Ds: Direct, Distract and Delegate) 4.Proactive and Reactive Green Dot Training tools include role playing, lecture, videos, and group discussions. References Banyard, V.L. (2008). Measurement and Correlates of Pro-social Bystander Behavior: The Case of Interpersonal Violence. Violence and Victims, 23, 85-99. Banyard, V.L., Moynihan, M.M., Crossman, M.T. (2009). Reducing Sexual Violence on capus: The Role of Student Leaders as Empowered Bystanders. Journal of College Student Development, 50 (4), 446-457. Coker, A.L., Cook-Craig, P.G., Williams, C.M., Fisher, B.S., Clear, E.R., Garcia, L.S., Hegge, L.M. (2011).Evaluation of Green Dot Active Bystander Intervention to Reduce Sexual Violence on College Campuses. Violence Against Women, 17 (6), 777-796 Darley, J.M., Latane, B. (1968). Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility., 8 (4), 377-383. Mehrabian, A., Epstein, N. (1971). A Measurement of Emotional Empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525-543. Payne, D.L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L.F. (1999). Rape Myth Acceptance: Exploration of its Structure and its Measurement Using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27-68. References Banyard, V.L. (2008). Measurement and Correlates of Pro-social Bystander Behavior: The Case of Interpersonal Violence. Violence and Victims, 23, 85-99. Banyard, V.L., Moynihan, M.M., Crossman, M.T. (2009). Reducing Sexual Violence on capus: The Role of Student Leaders as Empowered Bystanders. Journal of College Student Development, 50 (4), 446-457. Coker, A.L., Cook-Craig, P.G., Williams, C.M., Fisher, B.S., Clear, E.R., Garcia, L.S., Hegge, L.M. (2011).Evaluation of Green Dot Active Bystander Intervention to Reduce Sexual Violence on College Campuses. Violence Against Women, 17 (6), 777-796 Darley, J.M., Latane, B. (1968). Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility., 8 (4), 377-383. Mehrabian, A., Epstein, N. (1971). A Measurement of Emotional Empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525-543. Payne, D.L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L.F. (1999). Rape Myth Acceptance: Exploration of its Structure and its Measurement Using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27-68. **p< 0.01, two-tailed. *p < 0.05, two-tailed.  p< 0.10, two-tailed Project Design Pre-training survey packet Green Dot Bystander Intervention Training GDBET Post-training survey packet Demographic items Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale IRMA Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale IRMA Bystander Efficacy Scale BES Bystander Efficacy Scale BES Active Bystander Behavior Scale ABB Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy QMEE Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy QMEE QMEE Post-test IRMA Pre-test IRMA Post-test BES Pre-test BES Post-test ABB Pre-test QMEE Pre-test.958 ** -.357  -.394 *.416 *.431 *.067 QMEE Post-test -.306-.353 +.379 +.441 *.112 IRMA Pre-test.922 ** -.351 + -.323 + -.070 IRMA Post-test -.390 * -.329 + -.087 BES Pre-test.799 **.226 BES Post-test.281 Methods Discussions Positive effects of Green Dot training on self-reports of bystander efficacy and rape myth acceptance. Current work establishes connection of bystander efficacy and rape myth acceptance to empathy. Direction of correlations between rape myth acceptance and bystander efficacy supported by previous studies. Limitations Small sample (few males) Volunteer bias Social desirability in self-report Question on validity of BES as a measure of efficacy vs. awareness Direction for the future Non-equivalent control group (more males) Dissemination and retention of bystander behaviors: socio-ecological model. Empathy focused bystander training 3 Ds- specific scale to measure self-reports of efficacy in distract, delegate and direct techniques of intervention. Stalking, changes in awareness and need for intervention. Discussions Positive effects of Green Dot training on self-reports of bystander efficacy and rape myth acceptance. Current work establishes connection of bystander efficacy and rape myth acceptance to empathy. Direction of correlations between rape myth acceptance and bystander efficacy supported by previous studies. Limitations Small sample (few males) Volunteer bias Social desirability in self-report Question on validity of BES as a measure of efficacy vs. awareness Direction for the future Non-equivalent control group (more males) Dissemination and retention of bystander behaviors: socio-ecological model. Empathy focused bystander training 3 Ds- specific scale to measure self-reports of efficacy in distract, delegate and direct techniques of intervention. Stalking, changes in awareness and need for intervention. Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMA) a subset of 7 items of the 45-item Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMA) (Payne, Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1999) was used to measure participants self-reported acceptance of rape myths such as excusing the perpetrator and blaming the victim. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Agree Very much agree A lot of women lead a man on and then cry rape. When women are raped, it’s often because the way they said “no” was ambiguous. Active Bystander Behavior (ABB) modeled by Coker et al. (2011) after Banyard (2009)’s Bystander Behavior Scale. Respondents were asked to report how often, during the current school year (from Fall 2010 to Spring 2011), they had engaged in 12 bystander behaviors. 0 1 2 3 Not at all 1 to 2 times 3 to 5 times 6 or more times Spoke up to somebody who was bragging or making excuses for forcing someone to have sex with them. Got help for a friend because they had been forced to have sex or were hurt by their partner. Bystander Efficacy Scale (BES) Banyard et al. (2007) designed the 14-item Bystander Efficacy Scale, modeled after LaPlant’s (2002) work. For each item the respondents were asked to indicate their level of confidence in acting out certain bystander behaviors, rating their answer on a scale from 0% to 100%, 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Can’t Quite Moderately Certain Do Uncertain Certain Confidence ____% Able to ask a stranger who looks very upset at a party if they need to be walked home or need help. Speak up in class if the professor is providing misinformation about sexual assault. Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy (QMEE)- Mehrabian and Epstein (1972) developed a 33-item scale to test the level of emotional empathy in adults. -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 Very strongly Disagree Agree I tend to get emotionally involved with a friend’s problems. (+) When a friend starts to talk about his/hers problems, I try to steer the conversation to something else. (-) Participants 28 students / community members at the University of Louisville; 21 females and 7 males. Participants 28 students / community members at the University of Louisville; 21 females and 7 males. Additional Findings Inferential t-test analysis of BES items revealed that self-reports of bystander efficacy especially increased in scenarios involving helping a stranger and in situations where speaking up is socially discouraged. Additional Findings Inferential t-test analysis of BES items revealed that self-reports of bystander efficacy especially increased in scenarios involving helping a stranger and in situations where speaking up is socially discouraged.