The Efficacy of Bystander Interventions on Prejudiced Attitudes and Perceptions Towards Intervening in the United States: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

Abstract

While many bystander interventions have been implemented to reduce sexual violence, the true effects of the interventions on perceptions and attitudes are unclear as research has generally explored the impact on future behaviour instead of changes to attitudes. The present study explored the influence of bystander interventions on four outcomes, namely rape myth acceptance, sexism, bystander efficacy and intentions to help from randomized control trials (RCTs). Five electronic databases (PubMed [Medline], ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, Sociological Abstracts, PsychInfo [EBSCO] and Criminal Justice Abstracts [EBSCO] and Web of Science) were searched for eligible studies published between January 2015 and May 2024. Two reviewers independently conducted screening and data extraction. The average treatment effect size across all outcomes, with 43 effect sizes from 11 studies, was g = 0.283 with a 95 per cent confidence interval [0.178, 0.388], which was statistically significant. The outcomes rape myth acceptance (RMA), bystander efficacy and intentions to help were statistically significant. The outcome sexism was not examined in any studies and only six studies included RMA. The meta-analysis found evidence of bystander intervention efficacy in targeting prejudiced attitudes and perceptions towards intervening. Still, there remains a lack of research among non-binary and LGBTQ+ persons, the outcomes sexism and RMA, and RCTs conducted on bystander interventions.