Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33215241›Full record

ArticleThe journal of primary prevention2020

Reactions to Actions: Exploring How Types of Bystander Action Are Linked to Positive and Negative Consequences.

Elizabeth A Moschella, Victoria L Banyard

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of primary prevention, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Measuring what happens when bystanders help in drinking situations: The bystanders to alcohol risk scales-positive and negative consequences.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Are the Bystanders Okay? Exploring the Impact of Bystander Behavior for Self-directed Violence.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Elizabeth A MoschellaPrevention Innovations Research Center, University of New Hampshire, 9 Madbury Road, Suite #405, Durham, NH, 03824, USA. Elizabeth.moschella@unh.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8874-7691
Victoria L BanyardDepartment of Social Work, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sexual and dating violence (SDV) are growing public health problems in the United States. Prevention programs have sought to engage potential bystanders so they can safely and effectively intervene in situations involving SDV. However, the ability of these programs to prepare bystanders may be limited if they do not address the possible outcomes of their actions. Few studies have examined positive and negative consequences of bystander action, and only one has examined how various types of action impact these consequences. The purpose of our study was to explore how specific types of bystander actions and their number of actions were related to positive and negative consequences. We recruited participants (N = 615) through Amazon's Mechanical Turk and a university subject pool, all of whom were between the ages of 18 and 24. Participants described the type of action they took in response to risk for SDV (i.e., harassing comments, dating violence, unwanted sexual advances, and controlling behavior). We performed a content analysis on participants' written responses about the type of action taken. New measures of bystander consequences were used to examine bystander feelings and reactions of others (e.g., the victim, perpetrator). A range of action types were identified (i.e., direct, distract, distance, delegate, and physical action). Of note, direct action toward the perpetrator was related to more negative feelings and responses, whereas distract and distance action were associated with more positive feelings and responses from others. Further, taking multiple actions (as opposed to a single one) was related to more positive feelings and responses from others. Implications for research and practice are discussed, with a specific focus on prevention programming.

Indexed as

Crime VictimsHelping BehaviorStudentsAdolescentFemaleHumansIntimate Partner ViolenceMaleSex OffensesSurveys and QuestionnairesUniversitiesYoung AdultBystander consequencesBystander interventionDating violenceSexual assault

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.