Intervening is frequently encouraged to prevent or respond to sexual misconduct. However, due to the characteristics of military organizations (e.g., hierarchical structure), intervening may be challenging in military contexts. The aim of this study is to examine situational factors present in militaries (e.g., bystander’s rank relative to the perpetrator’s) that may impact the use of direct or indirect intervention strategies. A sample of Canadian Armed Forces members completed a scenario-based experiment. The results revealed that rank of the bystander, gender of the target, and severity of the situation impacted the use of direct intervention strategies, and the bystander’s rank relative to the perpetrator’s, gender of the target, and severity of the situation impacted the use of indirect intervention strategies. These findings highlight where direct and indirect interventions are unlikely to occur and situations that warrant greater focus in training programs and in communications from leadership.
*AsparouhovT.MuthénB. O.MorinA. J. S. (2015). Bayesian structural equation modeling with cross-loadings and residual covariances. Journal of Management, 41, 1561–1577.
2.
BanyardV. L. (2011). Who will help prevent sexual violence: Creating an ecological model of bystander intervention. Psychology of Violence, 1, 216–229.
3.
BanyardV. L.MoynihanM. M.PlanteE. G. (2007). Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(4), 463–481.
4.
Ben-AriE.SionL. (2005). “Hungry, weary and horny”: Joking and jesting among Israel’s combat reserves. Israel Affairs, 11(4), 655–671.
5.
BernhardH.FischbacherU.FehrE. (2006). Parochial altruism in humans. Nature, 442, 912–915.
6.
Bowes-SperryL.O’Leary-KellyA. M. (2005). To act or not to act: The dilemma faced by sexual harassment observers. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 288–306.
7.
Canadian Armed Forces. (2022). Canadian Armed Forces ethos: Trusted to serve (NDID Number: A-PA-005-000/AP-138). Professional Concepts and Leader Development, Canadian Defence Academy.
8.
ChabotH. F.TracyT. L.ManningC. A.PoissonC. A. (2009). Sex, attribution, and severity influence intervention decisions of informal helpers in domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1696–1713.
9.
*ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.
10.
*CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.
EllimanT. D.ShannahoffM. E.MetzlerJ. N.ToblinR. L. (2018). Prevalence of bystander intervention opportunities and behaviors among U.S. Army soldiers. Health Education & Behavior, 45(5), 741–747.
EvansS. C.RobertsM. C.KeelyJ. W.BlossomJ. B.AmaroC. M.GarciaA. M.Odar StoughC.CanterK. S.RoblesR.ReedG. M. (2015). Vignette methodologies for studying clinicians’ decision-making: Validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field studies. International Journal of Clinical and Health Studies, 15, 160–170.
17.
FischerP.KruegerJ. I.GreitemeyerT.VogrincicC.KastenmüllerA.FreyD. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 517–537.
18.
FiskeA. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689–723.
19.
GalinskyA. D.GruenfeldD. H.MageeJ. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453–466.
20.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512.
HaidtJ.KesebirS. (2010). Morality. In FiskeS.GilbertD.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, 5th edition (pp. 797–832). Wiley.
24.
HenemanH. G.IIIJudgeT. A.SmithV.SummersR. (2007). Staffing organizations: Canadian edition. McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
25.
HoggM. A.ReidS. A. (2001). Social identity, leadership, and power. In Lee-ChaiA. Y.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 159–180). Psychology Press.
26.
HollandK. J.RabeloV. C.CortinaL. (2016). See something, do something: Predicting sexual assault bystander intentions in the U.S. military. American Journal of Community Psychology, 58, 3–15.
27.
*HuL.-T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
28.
KäihköI. (2018). Broadening the perspective on military cohesion. Armed Forces & Society, 44(4), 571–586.
29.
KatzJ. (2015). Effects of group status and victim sex on male bystanders’ responses to a potential party rape. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24, 588–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.1029184
30.
KatzJ.ColbertS.ColangeloL. (2015). Effects of group status and victim sex on female bystanders’ responses to a potential party rape. Violence and Victims, 30, 265–278.
KuX.KimS. (2020). The role of the military rank, relational power, and agentic power in happiness of cadets at the Korea Military Academy. Military Behavioral Health, 8(1), 42–52.
33.
MainwaringC.GabbertF.ScottA. J. (2023). A systematic review exploring variables related to bystander intervention in sexual violence contexts. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(3), 1727–1742.
34.
*MarshH. W.EllisL.ParadaR.RichardsG.HeubeckB. (2005a). A short version of the Self-Description Questionnaire II: Operationalizing criteria for short form with new applications of confirmatory factor analyses. Psychological Assessment, 17, 81–102.
35.
*MarshH. W.HauK.-T.GraysonD. (2005b). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In Maydeu-OlivaresA.McArdleJ. J. (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics (pp. 275–340). Erlbaum.
36.
*McDonaldR. P. (1970). Theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis, canonical factor analysis, and alpha factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 23, 1–21.
37.
McMahonS.AllenC. T.PostmusJ. L.McMahonS. M.PetersonN. A.HoffmanM. L. (2014). Measuring bystander attitudes and behavior to prevent sexual violence. Journal of American College Health, 62(1), 58–66.
38.
McMahonS.BanyardV. L. (2012). When can I help? A conceptual framework for the prevention of sexual violence through bystander intervention. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13, 3–14.
39.
McMahonS.Lowe HoffmanM.McMahonS. M.ZuckerS.KoenickR. A. (2013). What would you do? Strategies for bystander intervention to prevent sexual violence by college students. Journal of College and Character, 14(2), 141–152.
40.
*MillsapR. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. Taylor & Francis.
41.
*MorinA. J. S.ArensA. K.MarshH. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling, 23, 116–139.
42.
*MorinA. J. S.MyersN. D.LeeS. (2020). Modern factor analytic techniques: Bifactor models, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and bifactor-ESEM. In TenenbaumG.EklundR. C. (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology, 4th edition (pp. 1044–1073). Wiley.
43.
MujalG. N.TaylorM. E.FryJ. L.Gochez-KerrT. H.WeaverN. L. (2021). A systematic review of bystander interventions for the prevention of sexual violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22, 381–396.
PotterS. J.StapletonJ. G. (2012). Translating sexual assault prevention from a college campus to a United States military installation piloting the know-your-power bystander social marketing campaign. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(8), 1593–1621.
47.
RobinsonD. T.Smith-LovinL. (2001). Getting a laugh: Gender, status, and humor in task discussions. Social Forces, 80(1), 123–158.
48.
RomeroE.PescosolidoA. (2008). Humor and group effectiveness. Human Relations, 61(3), 395–418.
49.
RosensteinJ. E.CarrollM. H. (2015). Male rape myths, female rape myths, and intent to intervene as a bystander. Violence and Gender, 2, 204–208.
50.
RubenfeldS.ClémentR. (2012). Intercultural conflict & mediation: An intergroup perspective. Language Learning, 62, 1205–1230.
51.
RubenfeldS.ClémentR. (2022). Measuring intercultural mediation in the context of intergroup conflict: Classical and modern test theory approaches to scale assessment. In BuschD. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of intercultural mediation (pp. 387–396). Routledge.
52.
RubenfeldS.DenommeW.LeBlancM.MesserveyD. (2022, October17). Effectiveness of Respect in the Canadian Armed Forces training [PowerPoint slides]. Department of National Defence.
53.
RubenfeldS.MesserveyD.LeBlancM.HowellG. (2021). Measuring bystander response to sexual misconduct in a military context: Scale development and content validation of the Sexual Misconduct Bystander Behaviour Measure (Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis DRDC-RDDC-2021-R176). Defence Research and Development Canada.
54.
RubenfeldS.RussellS. (2021). Sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces: Senior non-commissioned members’ perspectives (Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis DRDC-RDDC-2021-R128). Defence Research and Development Canada.
55.
RutkowskiG. K.GruderC. L.RomerD. (1983). Group cohesiveness, social norms, and bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(3), 545–552.
56.
SalazarL. F.Vivolo-KantorA.McGroarty-KoonK. (2017). Formative research with college men to inform content and messages for a web-based sexual violence prevention program. Health Communication, 32(9), 1133–1141.
57.
SampsonH.JohannessenI. A. (2020). Turning on the tap: The benefits of using “real-life” vignettes in qualitative research interviews. Qualitative Research, 20(1), 56–72.
58.
ThissenD.SteinbergL.KuangD. (2002). Quick and easy implementation of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure for controlling the false positive rate in multiple comparisons. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27(1), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986027001077
59.
TwemlowS. W.FonagyP.SaccoF. C. (2004). The role of the bystander in the social architecture of bullying and violence in schools and communities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1036(1), 215–232.
60.
ValdesoloP.DeStenoD. (2007). Moral hypocrisy social groups and the flexibility of virtue. Psychological Science, 18(8), 689–690.
61.
WeibullL.KarlssonJ. C. (2013). “Don’t fight the blue elephant”: Humorous signs as protests and conductors of negotiations in Swedish Peace Support Operations. Res Militaris, 3(3), 1–19.
62.
WilsonL. C. (2018). The prevalence of military sexual trauma: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(5), 584–597.
63.
*ZhangX.NoorR.SavaleiV. (2016). Examining the effect of reverse worded items on the factor structure of the seed for cognition scale. PLOS ONE, 11, Article e0157795.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
