Two different discussion post

Review Manuscript

Who, When, How, and Why Bystanders Intervene in Physical and Psychological Teen Dating Violence

Katrina J. Debnam1 and Victoria Mauer2

Abstract Teen dating violence victimization is associated with a host of adverse mental and physical health problems. A number of bystander-focused interventions have been developed to mitigate the occurrence of abuse but with varying effectiveness. There remains a need to understand more about bystander behaviors used by adolescents to ensure that existing intervention com- ponents match with bystanders’ attitudes and behaviors about intervening. The current study is a scoping review of existing literature on adolescents’ use of bystander behaviors to determine who, when, how, and why adolescents intervene. Seventeen articles met inclusion criteria, the majority of which used qualitative or observational survey designs. Adolescents who either feel a sense of responsibility and confidence to intervene or are directly involved with or know the individuals involved in the dating violence are more likely to intervene. Adolescents intervene when they are able to define an act as dating violence and tend to intervene when the victim is female and when they have a supportive relationship with at least one teacher in their school. The various ways how bystander intervention is engaged in ranges from verbally or physically confronting the abuser, distracting the abuser, seeking support from an adult, to passively accepting the abuse. Reasons why adolescents intervene include believing the abuse is wrong and that intervening will diffuse the situation and help the victim. A number of barriers to bystander intervention emerged from analysis including individual attitudes and school climate factors. Implications for strengthening bystander inter- vention programs are discussed.

Keywords dating violence, adolescents, relationship abuse, bystanders

In recent years, researchers and service providers have increas-

ingly focused on how to increase bystander intervention in teen

dating violence (TDV). A number of bystander-focused inter-

ventions have been developed to mitigate the occurrence of

abuse and assault but with varying effectiveness (Storer, Casey,

& Herenkohl, 2016). There remains a need to understand more

about actual adolescent bystander behaviors in order to ensure

that interventions are targeting the correct persons and direct-

ing intervention components in a manner that matches with

attitudes and behaviors about intervening. The current study

examines existing literature on bystander behaviors to uncover

who, when, how, and why adolescent bystanders intervene in

dating violence.

TDV

TDV or teen dating violence is defined as the physical, sexual,

or psychological/emotional violence within a romantic or dat-

ing relationship, including stalking. Physical TDV is defined as

the intentional or purposeful pushing, hitting, shoving, or kick-

ing by a dating partner. Data from the national Youth Risk

Behavior Survey reveal that 9.6% of high schools students who

dated or went out with someone during the 12 months before

the survey (11.7% of female students and 7.2% of male stu-

dents) report being physically hurt on purpose by that person

(Kann, 2016). Sexual violence has similar national prevalence

rates. 10.6% of students (15.6% of female students and 5.4% of

male students) had been forced to do sexual things (i.e., kissed,

touched, or physically forced to have sexual intercourse) they

did not want to do by someone they were dating or going out

with one or more times (Kann, 2016). Emotional abuse is char-

acterized as threatening a partner or harming his or her self-

worth. This type of abuse can come in the form of name calling,

making a partner feel guilty, purposeful embarrassment, or

controlling behaviors such as keeping him or her away from

friends and family. Although national prevalence of

1 School of Nursing, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA 2 Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Katrina J. Debnam, School of Nursing, University of Virginia, P. O. Box 800782,

Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA.

Email: [email protected]

TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 2021, Vol. 22(1) 54-67 ª The Author(s) 2019 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1524838018806505 journals.sagepub.com/home/tva

psychological or emotional abuse are not currently collected,

studies estimate that emotional TDV prevalence ranges from

24% (Haynie et al., 2013) to 96% (Jouriles, Garrido, Rosen-

field, & McDonald, 2009).

TDV victimization has been shown to be associated with a

host of adverse mental and physical health problems including

depression, substance use, suicidal ideation, risky sexual beha-

vior, and drug use (Exner-Cortens, Eckenrode, & Rothman,

2013; Nahapetyan, Orpinas, Song, & Holland, 2014; Parker,

Debnam, Pas, & Bradshaw, 2016; Shorey et al., 2015). These

risky behaviors are not limited to adolescence; 5 years after

experiencing TDV, young adults reported increased heavy epi-

sodic drinking, depressive symptomatology, antisocial beha-

viors, suicidal ideation, smoking, marijuana use, and adult

intimate partner victimization (Exner-Cortens et al., 2013).

Moreover, a recent report commissioned by the Centers for

Disease Control found that approximately 7% of adult women

and 4% of adult men who ever experienced rape, physical

violence, or stalking by an intimate partner first experienced

some form of partner violence by a partner before 18 years of

age (Black et al., 2011).

Help-Seeking Behaviors

Given the potential and long-lasting effects of TDV, seeking

assistance from others has many benefits to victims (Carlson,

McNutt, Choi, & Rose, 2002; Goodman, Dutton, Vankos, &

Weinfurt, 2005; Waldrop & Resick, 2004). Help seeking can

provide emotional support in the form of concern and encour-

agement to leave the relationship (Carson et al., 2002; Weisz &

Black, 2009). Information or advice from others can assist in

problem-solving, conflict negotiation, and additional knowl-

edge about healthy relationships (Weisz & Black, 2009).

Finally, help seeking can result in additional resources, protec-

tion from the abuser, and potentially reduce the severity or

frequency of the abuse (Weisz & Black, 2009).

However, the majority of adolescents experiencing dating

violence do not seek help (Ashley & Foshee, 2005). Victims

are often afraid the severity or frequency of abuse will be

increased by their abusers, as a result of speaking out (Martin,

Houston, Mmari, & Decker, 2012). Of those victims of TDV

who do seek help, the majority seek informal or nonprofes-

sional help, such as family or friends (Ahrens & Campbell,

2000; Ashley & Foshee, 2005; Banyard, Moynihan, Walsh,

Cohn, & Ward, 2010; Martin et al., 2012). Ashley and Foshee

(2005) reported that after experiencing dating violence, only

40% of adolescent victims sought help: 89% from a friend,

40% from a sibling or extended family, and 13–30% from a

parent. Black and Weisz (2003) found that, within a sample of

African American middle schoolers, more than 50% of youth

reported that they would be willing to seek help from their

parents, grandparents, and other adults in issues related to vio-

lence in their dating relationships.

Research also suggests that educating peer groups on how to

respond to friends asking for help when experiencing TDV

could be helpful (Ashley & Foshee, 2005). Indeed, Banyard,

Moynihan, Walsh, Cohn, and Ward (2010) found that friends of

sexual violence survivors felt they were able to be a good

source of help and support for the friend. Furthermore, a recent

study (Van Camp, Hébert, Guidi, Lavoie, & Blais, 2014) also

found that many adolescents feel confident in their ability to

deal with dating violence, reporting greater self-efficacy in

helping someone else. Yet there remains little research regard-

ing the role of friends and the disclosure process in physical and

psychological TDV.

Bystander Theoretical Underpinnings

Latané and Darley’s (1969) situational model of bystander

behavior (SMBB) is typically used to understand bystander

behaviors as related to adult intimate partner violence. The

SMBB posits that the decision to intervene in an emergency

is based on sequential choices by the individual (Hoefnagels &

Zwikker, 2001): (1) notice that something is happening, (2)

interpret the event as an emergency, (3) decide that it is his

or her personal responsibility to intervene, (4) decide how he or

she wants to intervene, and (5) implement the planned inter-

vention. This decision process may be especially relevant to

understanding adolescent bystander behaviors. Key aspects of

adolescents’ psychosocial development at this developmental

stage include increasing autonomy and peer affiliation. The

SMBB is consistent with adolescents desire to make indepen-

dent choices and consider peer affiliation when deciding how

they want to intervene. Indeed, Nickerson, Aloe, Livingston,

and Feeley (2014), in a study of U.S. youth, found each deci-

sion point in the SMBB significantly predicted willingness to

intervene in the context of bullying and sexual harassment.

Recently, Casey, Lindhorst, and Storer (2017) proposed a new

theoretical model that seeks to further elucidate adolescent use

of bystander behaviors as related to TDV and bullying. This

model incorporates the theory of planned behavior (TPB;

Ajzen, 1991) with the SMBB to explain the broad range of

adolescent attitudes and beliefs (i.e., cognitive factors) that

may play a role in this decision process. While research sug-

gests that SMBB is helpful for understanding the decision-

making process, TPB could help differentiate interveners from

noninterveners. The TPB, a social cognitive theory, posits that

adolescents’ behaviors can be predicted by their intention to

perform the behavior. However, adolescents’ intentions are

influenced by their attitude toward the specific behavior, social

norms regarding what important referrents (i.e., peers, family)

would want them to do, and perceived behavioral control or

self-efficacy to intervene. For example, adolescents, with their

increasing levels of peer affiliation, may be more likely to be

influenced by the perceived social norms regarding violence

among their peers. If adolescents perceive that their peers

would look positively upon intervening in a violence situation,

they may be more likely to make that decision. Casey, Lind-

horst, et al. (2017) found that adolescents’ qualitative descrip-

tion of their bystander decision-making process supports the

integration of SMBB and TPB to form a “situational-cognitive

model of bystander behavior.” While quantitative tests are

Debnam and Mauer 55

needed to further validate this emerging model, it is clear that

adolescent bystander behavior is complex and more research is

needed to advance intervention programming.

Bystander Interventions for Preventing TDV

Bystander-based prevention programs have been introduced as

an innovative strategy to prevent partner violence. These pro-

grams generally focus on arming adolescents or young adults

with the necessary skills and self-efficacy to safely intervene

when they witness dating violence and sexual violence. The

programs do not assume that the bystanders know or are famil-

iar with the abuser or victim but are built on the assumption that

“when community members ignore or fail to respond to beha-

viors across this spectrum, they tacitly reinforce the behavior”

(Storer, Casey, & Herrenkohl, 2016, p. 257). The goals of these

programs are to increase the likelihood that specific instances

of violence or abuse are disrupted and to foster a peer and

community environment that discourages aggressive or violent

behavior. This is particularly relevant to adolescents as there is

evidence that approximately half of all dating violence happens

in the presence of others (Molidor & Tolman, 1998). In fact,

existing bystander-focused programs, such as Bringing in the

Bystander, Coaching Boys Into Men and Green Dot, have

shown that changing social norms can result in a reduction in

sexual assault (Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante, 2007; Coker

et al., 2015, 2016; Miller et al., 2013).

However, research also suggests that bystander decisions to

intervene are contextual, contingent on individual characteris-

tics and form of violence (Weitzman, Cowan, & Walsh, 2017).

For example, Weitzman, Cowan, and Walsh (2017) found that,

within an adult sample, bystanders were more likely to inter-

vene in partner violence when compared to sexual assault. This

study also found that the method of intervention bystanders

chose was different for sexual assault and partner violence

(Weitzman et al., 2017). Furthermore, a study among college

students showed that men had the highest probability of

directly intervening in sexual assault, whereas women had the

highest probability of indirectly intervening in partner violence

(Palmer, Nicksa, & McMahon, 2018). Results also showed that

students who knew neither the victim nor the perpetrator

tended to choose to delegate the intervention to someone else

(Palmer et al., 2018). While emerging research suggests that

bystander intervention is an effective strategy for preventing

interpersonal violence (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004;

Coker et al., 2017; Palm Reed, Hines, Armstrong, & Cameron,

2015), more research is needed to evaluate the contextual fac-

tors (i.e., individual characteristics, form of violence, and type

of intervention method) influencing the use of this strategy for

adolescents (Casey & Ohler, 2012; Storer et al., 2016; Taylor,

Stein, Mumford, & Woods, 2013).

Overview of Current Study

The number of bystander-based programs has grown substan-

tially in the last decade, with a recent systematic review

documenting 15 programs since 2007 (Storer et al., 2016).

However, it is important to note only 2 of those 15 programs

have been tested with an adolescent population. Storer and

colleagues’ review showed that bystander programs show

promise in increasing bystanders’ willingness to positively

intervene in situations that could become violent, but note that

results are mixed and there are limitations in our understanding

actual bystander behaviors. In addition, the bystander studies

evaluated in the review focused almost exclusively on sexual

violence (i.e., 12 of 15 studies). Comparatively, little is known

regarding the use of bystander interventions and bystander

behavior specifically related to physical or psychological dat-

ing violence. Therefore, the current review focused on unco-

vering empirical research exploring adolescent bystander

behaviors in response to physical and psychological dating

violence. The following question guided this review of litera-

ture: Who, when, how, and why do adolescent bystanders inter-

vene in physical and psychological teen dating violence?

Method

This scoping review was conducted in three stages: (a) devel-

opment of criteria for inclusion and literature search, (b) extrac-

tion and coding of study characteristics and findings, and (c)

data analysis and aggregation of findings.

Inclusion Criteria and Literature Search

To be included in the review articles needed to describe bystan-

der behaviors of TDV, specifically related to physical and psy-

chological (emotional) abuse. Empirical studies were selected

for inclusion in the review if they fulfilled the following cri-

teria: (a) published in English, (b) included in a peer-reviewed

journal, and (c) included outcome data on adolescent bystander

behavior related to TDV. Articles were excluded if they only

included data related to persons college-aged or older (18 and

above) or only examined sexual violence, sexual assault, and/or

rape without mention of physical and/or emotional/psycholo-

gical dating violence. Studies that examined physical and/or

emotional/psychological dating violence along with forms of

sexual violence were retained in the review.

The authors worked with a professional research librarian to

create a list of search teams for the search. The search was

conducted in the following databases: PsycINFO, PubMed,

SocIndex (with Full text), and ERIC (ProQuest). The search

terms as they were searched were (“bystander behavior” OR

“bystander behavior” OR bystander) AND (“physical abuse”

OR “dating violence” OR “sexual violence” OR “psychological

abuse” OR “emotional abuse” OR “psychological aggression”

OR “physical aggression” OR “physical violence” OR

“psychological violence” OR “adolescent relationship abuse”)

AND (adolescent OR adolescence OR teenager OR teen). There

was no limit on the date of publication and the search was

conducted on July 1, 2017. See Figure 1 for a depiction of the

steps included in the scoping review. A total of 17 articles met

the selection criteria and are included in this review.

56 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 22(1)

Data Extraction and Analysis

As the focus of this review was to better understand the beha-

viors of adolescent bystanders as related to physical and psy-

chological TDV, data analysis and extraction concentrated on

these data in the articles. Specifically, the second author

extracted data from the articles on who intervenes, when do

they intervene or decide to intervene, how do the bystanders

intervene (i.e., what does the intervention behavior look like),

and why bystanders do or do not intervene. In addition, data

regarding the study design, participants, and measures used

was extracted to better understand the range of included

studies. Table 1 includes a summary of the data extracted for

the review.

Results

A total of 17 articles are included in this review (see Table 1).

The majority of the articles (n ¼ 10) were descriptive and

collected qualitative data (n ¼ 8) to explore dating violence.

Other study designs included were randomized control trials

(n ¼ 4) and quasi-experimental design (n ¼ 3). Of the articles

that contained postintervention data (n ¼ 6), three examined

the Coaching Boys Into Men (CBIM) intervention or an adapta-

tion of CBIM. The majority of the studies included in the review

were at least partially obtained from school-based samples (n ¼ 15). Participants surveyed were all middle or high school aged,

with the oldest age reported being 19 years old.

Who Intervenes

In examining results from the included empirical articles, we

gathered information on who engages in bystander interven-

tion. In general, adolescents who directly know the individuals

involved in the dating violence are most likely to intervene

(Casey, Lindhorst, & Storer, 2017). In particular, those youth

who are friends with the involved individuals, especially the

victim, are more likely to intervene (Edwards, Rodenhizer-

Stämpfli, & Eckstein, 2015).

A number of attitudes and beliefs were associated with

engaging in bystander intervention strategies. These include

feeling a moral sense of responsibility to intervene (Casey,

Lindhorst, et al., 2017), having a sense of self-efficacy and

confidence around their ability to effectively intervene (Casey,

Lindhorst, et al., 2017; Herbert et al., 2014; Jouriles, Rosen-

field, Yule, Sargent, & McDonald, 2016), believing that inter-

vening would help make the situation better and help the abuser

reflect on their actions (Casey, Lindhorst, et al., 2017), and

believing intervening would foster self-respect (Casey, Lind-

horst, et al., 2017). Conversely, Hébert, Van Camp, Lavoie,

Blais, and Guerrier (2014) showed that adolescents experien-

cing sexual abuse and dating violence in the past 12 months

reported lower self-efficacy to help others when witnessing

dating violence. Finally, feeling that situations of dating vio-

lence are not their business or that they should not be the ones

to intervene makes adolescents less inclined to utilize bystander

intervention (Casey, Lindhorst, et al., 2017).

Sc re en

in g

In clu

de d

El ig ib ili ty

Id en

�fi ca �o

n

Records iden�fied through database searching

(n = 620)

Records screened for exclusion criteria

(n = 556)

Full-text ar�cles assessed for eligibility

(n = 76)

Studies included in systema�c review

(n = 17)

480 ar�cles were excluded a�er a review of ar�cle abstracts determined they met exclusion criteria

Full-text ar�cles were reviewed. 56 were excluded. • 4 Systema�c Reviews • 1 Descrip�ve Study • 51 did not assess adolescent roman�c

rela�onships or adolescents’ bystander behaviors

63 duplicates were removed

Figure 1. Flow chart of studies selected for scoping review adolescent bystander behaviors.

Debnam and Mauer 57

T a b

le 1 .

St u d ie

s E x p lo

ri n g

A d o le

sc en

t B ys

ta n d er

B eh

av io

rs in

A d o le

sc en

t R

el at

io n sh

ip A

b u se

.

R ef

er en

ce s

St u d y

D es

ig n

D at

a C

o lle

ct io

n T

im ep

o in

t N

am e

o f

In te

rv en

ti o n

Sa m

p le

Sa m

p le

Si ze

an d

P ar

ti ci

p an

t G

en d er

T D

V Fo

rm s

M ea

su re

s W

h o

In te

rv en

es

H o w

D o

T h ey

In te

rv en

e?

W h en

D o

T h ey

In te

rv en

e?

W h y

D o

T h ey

In te

rv en

e?

B ar

ri er

s to

B ys

ta n d er

In te

rv en

ti o n

B ak

er an

d C

ar re

n o

(2 0 1 6 )

D es

cr ip

ti ve

(q u al

it at

iv e)

N A

N A

C o m

m u n it y

N ¼

3 9 ;

4 6 %

fe m

al e

E V

Fo cu

s gr

o u p

p ro

to co

l (F

G P )

X N

eg at

iv e

X X

B ak

er (2

0 1 7 )

D es

cr ip

ti ve

(q u al

it at

iv e)

N A

N A

C o m

m u n it y

N ¼

3 9 ;

4 6 %

fe m

al e

E V

, P V

FG P

X N

eg at

iv e,

d ir

ec t

X X

C as

ey ,

Li n d h o rs

t, an

d St

o re

r (2

0 1 7 )

D es

cr ip

ti ve

(q u al

it at

iv e)

N A

N A

Sc h o o l,

co m

m u n it y

an d

o n lin

e- b as

ed

N ¼

1 1 3 ;

6 5 %

fe m

al e

E V

, P V

, SV

FG P

X D

ir ec

t, in

d ir

ec t

X X

X

C as

ey , St

o re

r, &

H er

re n ko

h l,

(2 0 1 7 )

D es

cr ip

ti ve

(q u al

it at

iv e)

N A

N A

Sc h o o l,

co m

m u n it y

an d

o n lin

e- b as

ed

N ¼

1 1 3 ;

6 5 %

fe m

al e

E V

, P V

, SV

FG P

D ir

ec t,

n eg

at iv

e, in

d ir

ec t,

d is

tr ac

t

X X

E d w

ar d s,

R o d en

h iz

er -

St äm

p fli

, an

d E ck

st ei

n (2

0 1 5 )

D es

cr ip

ti ve

(q u an

ti ta

ti ve

an d

q u al

it at

iv e)

N A

N A

Sc h o o l- b as

ed N ¼

2 1 8 ;

4 4 %

fe m

al e

P V

, SV

FG P ; M

o d ifi

ed B ys

ta n d er

B eh

av io

r Sc

al e

(M B B S;

B an

ya rd

, 2 0 0 8 );

Y R

B S

(C D

C , 2 0 1 3 );

A cc

ep ta

n ce

o f D

at in

g A

b u se

Sc al

e (F

o sh

ee &

La n gw

ic k,

2 0 1 0 );

Ill in

o is

R ap

e M

yt h

A cc

ep ta

n ce

Sc al

e (M

cM ah

o n

& Fa

rm er

, 2 0 1 1 )

X D

ir ec

t, n eg

at iv

e, in

d ir

ec t,

d is

tr ac

t

X X

X

Fr y

et al

. (2

0 1 4 )

D es

cr ip

ti ve

(q u an

ti ta

ti ve

) N

A N

A Sc

h o o l- b as

ed N ¼

1 ,3

1 1 ;

5 6 %

fe m

al e

E V

, P V

, SV

In ve

st ig

at o r

D ev

el o p ed

M ea

su re

s (I

D M

) X

D ir

ec t,

in d ir

ec t

H éb

er t,

V an

C am

p ,

La vo

ie , B la

is ,

an d

G u er

ri er

(2 0 1 4 )

D es

cr ip

ti ve

(q u an

ti ta

ti ve

) N

A N

A Sc

h o o l- b as

ed N ¼

6 ,5

4 0 ;

5 8 %

fe m

al e

E V

, P V

, SV

Se lf-

ef fic

ac y

to D

ea l w

it h

V io

le n ce

Sc al

e (S

E D

V ;

C am

er o n

et al

., 2 0 0 7 )

X

Jo u ri

le s,

R o se

n fie

ld ,

Y u le

, Sa

rg en

t, an

d M

cD o n al

d (2

0 1 6 )

Q u as

i- ex

p er

im en

ta l

(q u an

ti ta

ti ve

)

N A

N A

Sc h o o l- b as

ed N ¼

8 0 ;

5 3 %

fe m

al e

E V

, P V

, SV

ID M

; R

es p o n si

b ili

ty fo

r in

te rv

en in

g sc

al e

(B u rn

, 2 0 0 9 );

M B B S;

D ec

is io

n al

b al

an ce

sc al

e/ P er

ce iv

ed b en

ef it s

fo r

in te

rv en

in g

(B an

ya rd

et al

., 2 0 0 4 )

X

K er

vi n

an d

O b in

n a

(2 0 1 0 )

Q u as

i- E x p er

im en

ta l

(q u al

it at

iv e

an d

q u an

ti ta

ti ve

)

P o st

in te

rv en

ti o n

Y o u th

A d vi

so ry

C o m

m it te

e

Sc h o o l- b as

ed N ¼

4 8 *

E V

, P V

, SV

ID M

D ir

ec t

X

(c on

tin ue

d)

58

T a b

le 1 .

(c o n ti n u ed

)

R ef

er en

ce s

St u d y

D es

ig n

D at

a C

o lle

ct io

n T

im ep

o in

t N

am e

o f

In te

rv en

ti o n

Sa m

p le

Sa m

p le

Si ze

an d

P ar

ti ci

p an

t G

en d er

T D

V Fo

rm s

M ea

su re

s W

h o

In te

rv en

es

H o w

D o

T h ey

In te

rv en

e?

W h en

D o

T h ey

In te

rv en

e?

W h y

D o

T h ey

In te

rv en

e?

B ar

ri er

s to

B ys

ta n d er

In te

rv en

ti o n

M cC

au le

y et

al .

(2 0 1 3 )

D es

cr ip

ti ve

(q u an

ti ta

ti ve

) P re

in te

rv en

ti o n

C o ac

h in

g b o ys

in to

m en

Sc h o o l- b as

ed N ¼

1 ,6

9 9

(m al

es o n ly

)

E V

, P V

, SV

ID M

; C

o n fli

ct T

ac ti cs

Sc al

e– M

o d ifi

ed (C

T S-

M ; St

ra u s,

H am

b y,

B o n ey

-M cC

o y,

& Su

ga rm

an , 1 9 9 6 ;

G en

d er

-E q u it ab

le N

o rm

s Sc

al e-

M o d ifi

ed (G

E N

; P u le

rw it z

& B ar

ke r,

2 0 0 8 )

D ir

ec t,

in d ir

ec t

X

M ill

er et

al .

(2 0 1 4 )

E x p er

im en

ta l

(q u an

ti ta

ti ve

) P o st

in te

rv en

ti o n

P ar

iv ar

ta n

(a d ap

ta ti o n

o f co

ac h in

g b o ys

In to

m en

)

Sc h o o l- b as

ed N ¼

3 0 9

(m al

es o n ly

)

E V

, P V

, SV

ID M

X

M ill

er et

al .

(2 0 1 3 )

E x p er

im en

ta l

(q u an

ti ta

ti ve

) P o st

in te

rv en

ti o n ,

1 -y

ea r

fo llo

w -

u p

C o ac

h in

g b o ys

in to

m en

Sc h o o l- b as

ed N ¼

1 ,5

1 3

(m al

es o n ly

)

E V

, P V

, SV

ID M

; re

co gn

it io

n o f

ab u si

ve b eh

av io

r (R

A B ;

R o th

m an

, D

ec ke

r, &

Si lv

er m

an , 2 0 0 6 );

G E N

; C

T S-

M

X X

M ill

er et

al .

(2 0 1 2 )

E x p er

im en

ta l

(q u an

ti ta

ti ve

) P o st

in te

rv en

ti o n

C o ac

h in

g b o ys

in to

m en

Sc h o o l- b as

ed N ¼

2 , 0 0 6

(m al

es o n ly

)

E V

, P V

, SV

ID M

; R

A B ; G

E N

; C

T S-

M X

D ir

ec t,

in d ir

ec t

P lo

u rd

e et

al .

(2 0 1 6 )

Q u as

i- E x p er

im en

ta l

(q u al

it at

iv e

an d

q u an

ti ta

ti ve

)

P o st

in te

rv en

ti o n

Y o u

th e

m an

(Y T

M )

Sc h o o l- b as

ed N ¼

1 ,2

6 9 ;

4 9 %

fe m

al e

E V

, P V

, SV

ID M

, FG

P D

ir ec

t, in

d ir

ec t

Sa rg

en t,

Jo u ri

le s,

R o se

n fie

ld ,

an d

M cD

o n al

d (2

0 1 7 )

E x p er

im en

ta l

(q u an

ti ta

ti ve

) P o st

in te

rv en

ti o n

T ak

eC A

R E

Sc h o o l- b as

ed N ¼

1 ,2

9 5 ;

5 3 %

fe m

al e

E V

, P V

, SV

Fr ie

n d s

P ro

te ct

in g

Fr ie

n d s

B ys

ta n d er

B eh

av io

r Sc

al e

(B an

ya rd

, M

o yn

ih an

, C

ar es

, &

W ar

n er

, 2 0 1 4 )

X X

St o re

r, C

as ey

, an

d H

er re

n ko

h l

(2 0 1 7 )

D es

cr ip

ti ve

(q u al

it at

iv e)

N A

N A

Sc h o o l,

co m

m u n it y

an d

O n lin

e- b as

ed

N ¼

1 1 3 ;

6 5 %

fe m

al e

E V

, P V

FG P

X X

X

V an

C am

p ,

H éb

er t,

G u id

i, La

vo ie

, an

d B la

is (2

0 1 4 )

D es

cr ip

ti ve

(q u an

ti ta

ti ve

) N

A N

A Sc

h o o l- b as

ed N ¼

2 5 9 ,

5 9 .5

% fe

m al

e

E V

, P V

, SV

SE D

V ; C

o n fli

ct in

A d o le

sc en

t D

at in

g R

el at

io n sh

ip s

In ve

n to

ry –

Sh o rt

Fo rm

, M

o d ifi

ed (W

ek er

le et

al .,

2 0 0 9 );

Se x u al

E x p er

ie n ce

s Su

rv ey

(K o ss

& O

ro s,

1 9 8 2 )

X D

ir ec

t X

N ot

e. N

A ¼

n o t

ap p lic

ab le

;E V ¼

em o ti o n al

vi o le

n ce

,P V ¼

p h ys

ic al

vi o le

n ce

,S V ¼

se x u al

vi o le

n ce

;“ X

” in

d ic

at es

th at

th is

st u d y

p ro

vi d ed

d at

a re

ga rd

in g

th is

as p ec

t o fb

ys ta

n d er

b eh

av io

rs .*

st u d y

is m

is si

n g

b re

ak d o w

n o f

fe m

al e

an d

m al

e p ar

ti ci

p an

ts .

59

Some studies found differences in bystander intervention

based on youth demographic characteristics. Three studies

showed that female youth are more likely to intervene and more

optimistic about their intervention abilities (Edwards et al.,

2015; Fry et al., 2014; Hébert, Van Camp, Lavoie, Blais, &

Guerrier 2014; Van Camp et al., 2014). Moreover, Fry and

colleagues (2013) and Sargent and colleagues (2017) found

that Hispanic adolescents were more likely to use bystander

intervention than non-Hispanic adolescents. They also found

that adolescents born in the United States were more likely to

talk to their friends about dating violence and give their friends

advice related to dating violence than foreign-born adolescents

(Fry et al., 2014).

Studies found that participation in bystander training pro-

gramming impacted engagement in bystander behaviors. For

instance, students exposed to the TakeCARE bystander pro-

gram reported engagement in more “helpful” bystander beha-

viors at a 3-month follow-up (Sargent, Jouriles, Rosenfield, &

McDonald, 2017). While athletes participating in Coaching

Boys Into Men (CBIM) intervention reported initial increases

in bystander intervention (Jaime et al., 2015; Miller et al., 2012,

2013), the 12-month follow-up study of CBIM found that the

effects of the intervention on athletes’ utilization of and will-

ingness to use bystander behavior were no longer significant

(Miller et al., 2013). In addition,“Parivartan” an adaptation of

CBIM for adolescent male athletes in India found that athletes

who participated in the program reported significantly fewer

“negative” bystander behaviors (e.g., laughing at or going

along with peers’ abusive behaviors) at the 12-month follow-

up (Miller et al., 2014). However, this study did not find sig-

nificant differences between intervention and nonintervention

athletes in terms of positive bystander behaviors or abuse per-

petration (Miller et al., 2014).

When Do Adolescents Intervene

Our examination of results from the included empirical articles

also included an exploration of time and spaces in which ado-

lescents utilize or feel comfortable engaging in bystander inter-

vention. The studies revealed that adolescents’ ability to

determine whether an act constitutes abuse impacts when they

intervene. Casey, Lindhorst, et al. (2017) found that adoles-

cents use a number of factors to determine whether an act

constitutes abuse, including the victim’s reaction to the beha-

vior. Two studies showed that adolescents are more likely to

intervene when the victim of the abuse is female and in situa-

tions of physical abuse, especially if it causes injury or signif-

icant distress to the victim (Casey, Lindhorst, et al., 2017;

Edwards, Haynes, & Rodenhizer-Stämpfli, 2016). Another

study found that adolescents are more likely to intervene in

situations that do not include the presence of a perpetrator

(Sargent et al., 2017). Adolescents are also more likely to inter-

vene when they observe controlling behaviors in their peers’

romantic relationships (Edwards et al., 2015). For example, if

they overhear a friend insulting their partner, or saying things

like, “she deserved to be raped” (Edwards et al., 2015, p.223).

Yet Sargent and colleagues (2017) found that adolescents most

often intervene after situations of abuse have occurred, as

opposed to interrupting abuse that is occurring in the moment

or before it occurs.

A few studies discussed contextual issues that facilitate

when adolescents’ intervene. For instance, Edwards, Rodenhi-

zer-Stämpfli, and Eckstein (2015) found that adolescents are

less likely to intervene when they observe abusive behaviors

over social media as opposed to observing abuse in person.

Additionally, Storer, Casey, and Herrenkohl (2017) showed

that adolescents who report having social support in school

(i.e., at least one supportive relationship with a teacher in

school) were more likely to intervene.

How Do Adolescents Intervene/What Does It Look Like

We also examined the articles, for examples, of how adoles-

cents engage in bystander intervention. From this analysis, we

found five trends in the description of bystander behavior used

by adolescents: (1) direct verbal confrontation, (2) direct phys-

ical confrontation, (3) distraction, (4) indirect intervention, and

(5) passive or active acceptance.

Direct verbal confrontation was discussed in 11 of the

reviewed studies. Direct verbal confrontation describes beha-

viors in which adolescents directly address the abuse with the

perpetrator and/or victim using a verbal response. It can look

like adolescents verbally interrupting the abuse as it is occur-

ring and saying things such as “Stop” or “Knock it off” (Casey,

Lindhorst, et al., 2017; Casey, Storer, & Herrenkohl, 2017;

Edwards et al., 2015) or correcting problematic language and

reacting negatively to sexist jokes (Jaime et al., 2015; Kervin &

Obinna, 2010). Direct verbal confrontation also includes ado-

lescents having conversations with a member of the couple,

especially the victim (Edwards et al., 2015; Fry et al., 2014;

Miller et al., 2012). In such conversations, adolescents

described providing emotional support (Baker, 2017; Casey,

Storer, et al., 2017; Plourde et al., 2016) and advice to the

victim (Baker, 2017; Casey, Storer, et al., 2017; Fry et al.,

2014; Plourde et al., 2016; Van Camp et al., 2014). Advice

included such things as encouraging the victim to disclose the

abuse to a trusted adult (Fry et al., 2014; Van Camp et al., 2014)

or hotline (Fry et al., 2014) and encouraging the victim to leave

their abusive partner (Casey, Storer, et al., 2017; Fry et al.,

2014; Plourde et al., 2016). In two of the reviewed studies,

adolescents also discussed having conversations with the per-

petrator (Casey, Storer, et al., 2017; Fry et al., 2014). In the

Casey, Storer, and Herrenkohl study (2017), adolescents dis-

cussed having a private conversation with the perpetrator to

express disapproval for the abusive behavior and attempt to

educate the abuser.

Direct physical confrontation was discussed in three of the

reviewed studies (Casey, Storer, et al., 2017; Edwards et al.,

2015; Weisz & Black, 2009). We use the description of phys-

ical confrontation to describe the physical nature of adolescent

bystanders, most often male adolescents’, attempts to interrupt

abuse, which is distinct from verbal confrontation. Such

60 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 22(1)

physical confrontations include stepping in between the couple

(Casey, Storer, et al., 2017), using physical aggression

(Edwards et al., 2015), and fighting the perpetrator (Casey,

Storer, et al., 2017; Weisz & Black, 2009).

Distraction, as an intervening method, was also often phys-

ical in nature but describes adolescents’ attempts to interrupt

the behavior and have parties focus on something else. Distrac-

tion was discussed by three of the reviewed articles (Casey,

Lindhorst, et al., 2017; Casey, Storer, et al., 2017; Edwards

et al., 2015). Distraction included efforts to interrupt abusive

behavior as it occurred by creating a distraction, ignoring the

perpetrator, and removing the victim from the moment (Casey,

Lindhorst, et al., 2017; Casey, Storer, et al., 2017). More spe-

cifically, in one study, male adolescents described their efforts

to use distraction by asking the victim to dance or starting a

conversation with the victim (Edwards et al., 2015).

Indirect methods of intervention, which were discussed in

six of the reviewed articles, included adolescents’ attempts to

enlist support for addressing the abuse. All of the articles that

discussed indirect methods described ways adolescents enlisted

the support of an adult (i.e., parents, school staff; Casey, Lind-

horst, et al., 2017; Casey, Storer, et al., 2017; Edwards et al.,

2015; Fry et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2013; Plourde et al., 2016).

Indirect methods also included accompanying a friend to speak

with an adult or get support services (Casey, Storer, et al., 2017;

Fry et al., 2014) and calling a support or crisis hotline (Fry

et al., 2014; Plourde et al., 2016).

Finally, passive or active acceptance of the abuse describes

bystander behaviors that do not seek to support the victim or stop

the abuse. The nature of these actions has the potential to com-

municate acceptance of the abusive behavior. Passive or active

acceptance of the abuse was discussed in two of the reviewed

articles. Casey, Storer, et al. (2017) found that these include not

doing anything when observing abuse, withdrawing from the

victim, and attempting to diagnose the victim in order to figure

out what would make them accepting of such abusive treatment.

Furthermore, Edwards and colleagues (2015) found that adoles-

cents sometimes ignore the abuse as a way to avoid “drama.”

Why Do Adolescents Intervene

Few studies provided reasons why adolescents do or do not

intervene in dating violence (Baker & Carreno, 2016; Casey,

Lindhorst, et al., 2017; Casey, Storer, et al., 2017; Edwards

et al., 2015). Casey, Lindhorst, et al. (2017) found that adoles-

cents intervene because they see the abuse as serious. In this

study (Casey, Lindhorst, et al., 2017), the seriousness of the

abuse was determined by adolescents’ examination of the vic-

tim’s distress, whether or not the abuse is part of a repeated

pattern (i.e., more likely to intervene), and whether it is mutual

(i.e., less likely to intervene). Consistent with a sense of per-

sonal responsibility described in “who” intervenes, interven-

tion occurs because adolescents feel that relationship abuse is

wrong and should be stopped. Simply stated; adolescents must

believe that intervening is the right thing to do (Casey, Lind-

horst, et al., 2017). Furthermore, there is a need to believe that

intervening as a bystander can help diffuse the situation and

will help improve things for the victim. In contrast, some ado-

lescents may decide to intervene for negative reasons. Two

studies showed that some adolescents may intervene because

they desire to fuel the “drama” within the relationship, which

often occurs through social media (Baker & Carreno, 2016;

Edwards et al., 2015).

Barriers to Bystander Intervention

In reviewing the studies included in this review, a number of

barriers that inhibit adolescents’ use of bystander intervention

emerged. First, as adolescents become more uncertain about

whether a couple’s acts constitute abuse they are less able to

determine how to safely intervene (Casey, Lindhorst, et al.,

2017). Three studies described attitudes that impede interven-

ing including: (1) sensing that intervention would somehow

make the situation more risky for the victim, (2) feeling inter-

vening would risk their own physical safety, (3) believing inter-

vention will not permanently make a difference, and (4)

considering abuse to be a private matter and that if they inter-

vene they will be considered intrusive (Casey, Lindhorst, et al.,

2017; Edwards et al., 2015; Storer, Casey, & Herrenkohl,

2017). Adolescents who are of a lower social status (e.g.,

younger, less popular) than the abuser or abused often feel that

intervention will not be successful (Casey, Lindhorst, et al.,

2017) and fear social repercussions for their actions (Edwards

et al., 2015). Moreover, adolescents are less likely to intervene

in situations more likely to be characterized as harassment

(e.g., sexist jokes, catcalls; Edwards et al., 2015).

Just as factors in schools can facilitate adolescents’ use of

bystander intervention, school climate factors can also inhibit

intervention. Such factors include (1) feeling teachers and

administrators are more equipped to intervene, and (2) perceiv-

ing that schools do not take adolescent dating abuse seriously

and lack awareness of the issue (Storer et al., 2017). Addition-

ally, school cultures that reinforce “slut-shaming” and other

sexist attitudes can diminish the likelihood that students will

intervene (Storer et al., 2017). Finally, students are often hesi-

tant to report abuse to teachers and other school officials for a

number of reasons including (1) concerns that they will be

considered a “snitch,” (2) lack of comfort discussing sensitive

topics with teachers they are not close to, and (3) perceptions

that teachers are not concerned about dating and sexual aggres-

sion among students (Edwards et al., 2015).

Discussion

To date, little research has explored how adolescents intervene

in situations of physical and psychological dating violence.

This scoping review sought to describe who, when, how, and

why adolescents intervene in the context of TDV. The review

provides evidence that adolescents can and do use bystander

behaviors when faced with situations of TDV. This review also

shows that contextual factors influence whether or not adoles-

cents feel capable of using such behaviors, and researchers

Debnam and Mauer 61

have described a number of barriers that prevent adolescents

from feeling they can effectively intervene.

Adolescents intervene when it is a close friend who is

involved in the violent relationship and when they feel confi-

dent about their ability to contribute to a positive outcome both

for the victim and for themselves. This finding is consistent

with social cognitive model of adolescent bystander behavior

in that adolescents’ self-efficacy or confidence to intervene

plays a role in their decision-making process. Results suggest

more research is needed to identify how often and what factors

might positively impact adolescents’ confidence in intervening

with peers who they do not share a close relationship with. It is

clear that an adolescent’s sense of the utility of bystander inter-

vention when observing dating violence must override any

sense that the violence is none of their business (Casey, Lind-

horst, et al., 2017). Some sexual assault prevention program-

ming has been successful at encouraging bystander

intervention through social norm campaigns (Gidycz, Orch-

owski, & Berkowitz, 2011).

In line with the SMBB which suggests that defining the

situation as an emergency is important to the decision-

making process, the current study found that adolescents

must be able to define an act as abusive if they are to

actually intervene. Adolescents define acts as abusive by

observing such factors as the gender of the victim and the

types of abusive behaviors. In fact, adolescents’ uncertainty

about whether acts can be considered abusive impacts their

likelihood of intervening (Casey, Lindhorst, et al., 2017).

Continuing to educate adolescents about the different forms

of dating violence and how they may manifest themselves in

their friends’ relationships may increase their likelihood of

intervening. It is important to provide modern examples of

dating violence that speak to the real lives of adolescents to

translate the definitions of abuse (Sears, Byers, Whelan, &

Saint-Pierre, 2006).

This review explored how bystander intervention is car-

ried out when adolescents observe physical and psychologi-

cal dating violence. Direct verbal confrontation was most

often used to intervene. While adolescents utilize such con-

frontation in a number of ways, more research is need to

determine whether it is the most effective intervention strat-

egy for physical and psychological TDV. Some studies

found that when adolescents confronted their friends in abu-

sive relationships, telling them they should break up with

their abusive partner because they deserved to be treated

better, their friends pulled away from the friendship (Baker,

2017). It is possible that there is a strategically effective

manner in which adolescents can utilize verbal confronta-

tion; however, adolescents may need additional training and

support for how to engage in these conversations with their

friends (Kim, Weinstein, & Selman, 2017). Furthermore,

adolescents’ ability to discern the proper time to utilize such

interventions is potentially limited. Encouraging friends to

leave an abusive relationship may be best completed using

specific motivational language over the course of several

conversations (Cunningham et al., 2013). TDV prevention

programming should seek to provide adolescents with the

skills necessary to effectively and sensitively respond to

observed abuse.

The reviewed articles discussed a number of barriers to

adolescent bystander intervention. A number of these barriers

described the ways school culture and climate can be a major

barrier to disclosures about abuse. This review highlights the

important role teachers, school support staff, and school admin-

istrators can play in creating and fostering school climates that

deem TDV a serious matter that is not tolerated and that stu-

dents are expected to aid in the prevention of such abuse. This

finding further lends credibility to the social cognitive model of

adolescent bystander behavior which theorizes that social

norms about intervening could be vital to increasing positive

bystander behaviors. Such school and social climates would

also encourage adolescent disclosure of abuse by fostering pos-

itive connections between students and teachers and adminis-

trators. Indeed, Storer et al. (2017) found that adolescents were

more willing to intervene in dating violence when they per-

ceived the school personnel had expertise to respond effec-

tively, the school environment was intolerant of abuse, and

when students had trusted the relationships with teachers.

Existing school-based interventions will be more effective if

they are able to cultivate a whole school response to abuse and

violence (Storer et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2013). For example,

efforts to strengthen student connectedness to the school, staff,

and other students may increase their likelihood of reporting

dating abuse (Debnam, Johnson, & Bradshaw, 2014).

Consistent with the recent review of bystander intervention

programs (Storer et al., 2016) and the social cognitive model of

adolescent bystander behavior, study findings show there is a

need for bystander-based interventions to consider the context

in which adolescents operate in. Engaging in bystander beha-

viors is contingent on a myriad of situational and cognitive

factors, which then may be affected by the social norms of that

environment. For example, even if adolescents endorse a sense

of personal responsibility to intervene in witnessed dating vio-

lence, they still may be less likely to engage in an indirect

intervention if they don’t perceive support from trusted adults

in their community. Thus, attention to setting-level policies and

norms is important component of bystander programming.

In addition, the current study extends the review of bystan-

der programs by considering specific traits of bystanders.

Examining these traits across studies, in aggregate, makes it

easier to see the gaps in our current knowledge and contributes

to our understanding of the necessary components of bystander

interventions. Specifically, few studies provided information of

when and why adolescents intervene. Future research that con-

siders these factors may see a greater impact on bystander

behavior. For instance, coaches in the CBIM intervention dis-

cussed the fact that many youth need time to grapple with the

idea of intervening against their peers. CBIM found that ath-

letes are often hesitant to intervene with their teammates and

feared retaliation (Jaime et al., 2015). The push toward bystan-

der intervention programming like CBIM as a means to prevent

dating violence by promoting awareness of and intervention in

62 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 22(1)

situations of TDV continues to increase (Banyard, Edwards, &

Seibold, 2016; Kaukinen et al., 2018). However, such program-

ming requires an understanding of how and when adolescents

utilize bystander behaviors. This review can be used to inform

efforts to enhance researchers’ and service providers’ under-

standing of adolescent bystander intervention. For instance,

adolescents noted concern for their own physical safety as a

barrier to bystander intervention. Service providers may con-

sider alternative ways (e.g., anonymous or confidential help

lines) for adolescents to report their concerns about dating

abuse that protects the reporter.

Limitations of our review should be noted. Given that

the search uncovered only 17 studies meeting the review

criteria, many findings are based on a small number (i.e.,

2–3) of peer-reviewed articles. In addition, the review

includes only those articles written in English and pub-

lished studies. However, the review did benefit from using

a professional research librarian consultation in the search

of online databases. Data for this review were extracted

from data available in the published article. Thus, addi-

tional data that might be available through other sources

were not obtained, and no input was sought from the indi-

vidual authors. This review focuses on results from studies

that explicitly included physical and psychological dating

violence. As a result, the findings do not readily generalize

to programs targeting only sexual harassment, assault, or

abuse. Moreover, this review did not include articles that

described intervening behaviors by adults or parents. There

is an emerging literature base regarding the role of parents

in response to dating abuse that is also important for future

bystander intervention development (Black & Preble,

2016). This review intentionally included studies that pro-

vided both qualitative and quantitative data as well as data

collected pre- and postintervention. Thus, the heterogeneity

of outcomes and assessment methods precluded performing

a formal meta-analysis and bystander data may have been

influenced by the study intervention. It is also important

note that there was adequate diversity across study partici-

pants. While the majority of data were collected from

school-based samples, participants were diverse in race and

ethnicity (i.e., five samples were majority Black, five sam-

ples were majority White, and two samples were majority

Hispanic or Latino). In addition, three of the studies (Her-

bert et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2014; Van Camp et al.,

2014) were conducted with adolescents outside of the

United States.

As demonstrated in our findings who engages in bystander

intervention and how they engage in these behaviors varies

widely. Through this review, we demonstrated that there are

many factors to consider in increasing adolescents willingness

and ability to intervene on a peer’s behalf. Findings from the

study can be used to strengthen our bystander programming

and prevention efforts particularly as related to physical and

psychological abuse. Future research must also examine the

effectiveness of this approach in reducing the overall occur-

rence of dating violence.

Critical Findings

� Consistent with bystander intervention literature, the

findings of this review reveal that adolescents do utilize

bystander behaviors in response to TDV, especially

when they feel confident that their intervention will be

effective and positively contribute to a friend’s well-

being. Additionally, adolescents’ ability to intervene is

impacted by their capacity to define an act as abusive.

Adolescents’ efficacy in defining acts as abuse remains

unclear, but many adolescents use factors like gender

and the type of abusive behavior to determine whether

they should intervene.

� When observing TDV, adolescents use bystander inter-

vention in a number of ways including: direct verbal

confrontation, direct physical confrontation, distraction,

and indirect intervention (e.g., soliciting the help of an

adult). However, not all adolescents effectively inter-

vene when faced with TDV and some studies show that

adolescents exhibit passive or active acceptance when

observing TDV.

� This review revealed a number of barriers adolescents

face against using bystander intervention. Adolescents’

own attitudes toward bystander intervention can get in

the way. Feeling that the intervention would be too

risky, both socially and physically, and that abuse is a

private matter between the couple stops adolescents

from utilizing bystander behaviors. Further, the culture

and climate of an adolescent’s school can inhibit bystan-

der intervention, especially in schools that do not com-

municate that TDV is a serious matter that will be

effectively dealt with by school officials.

� While little is known about why adolescents intervene as

bystanders, the findings of this review show that adoles-

cents intervene when they perceive abusive behaviors to

be serious, which may be based on victim’s level of

distress and the pattern of abuse. Adolescents who inter-

vene to stop violence do so because they believe that

dating violence is not okay and that intervening will

diffuse the situation and help the victim.

Recommendations and Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research

� This scoping review highlights the need for relevant

examples to teach adolescents ways to identify different

forms of dating violence with consideration of how the

forms manifest in adolescent relationships.

� This study revealed the strong influence context plays in

supporting or inhibiting bystander behaviors. Because

adolescents spend much of their time in school, school

officials may need to create and foster school climates

that communicate that TDV is not okay, students are

encouraged to disclose abuse when they observe it, and

Debnam and Mauer 63

further cultivate school-wide response to abuse. Adoles-

cents are sensitive to adult responses to abuse and

schools must exhibit that they can effectively respond

to TDV.

� Bystander intervention programming may benefit from

more information about how and when adolescents actu-

ally use bystander behaviors. Such programs can strive

to provide adolescents with intervention strategies that

both effectively and sensitively respond to TDV. Fur-

ther, when training adolescents to respond, program

operators may dedicate time to allowing adolescents to

consider and discuss any barriers they perceive in inter-

vening with their peers.

� This scoping review highlights the need for additional

research to understand what factors impact adolescents’

confidence and understanding of when it is appropriate

and useful to use bystander behaviors. Moreover,

research should strive to understand what bystander

intervention strategies are most effective for physical

and psychological TDV and when is the proper time to

utilize such interventions. Finally, continued research is

needed to determine how effective bystander interven-

tion programming is in reducing the occurrence of TDV.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Chloe Grinage for her early help in

conducting this review.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The

research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant

#R305B140026 to the Rectors and Visitors of the University of

Virginia.

References

(*Denotes studies included in the scoping review.)

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ahrens, C. E., & Campbell, R. (2000). Assisting rape victims as they

recover from rape: The impact on friends. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 15, 959–986.

Ashley, O. S., & Foshee, V. A. (2005). Adolescent help-seeking for

dating violence: Prevalence, sociodemographic correlates, and

sources of help. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 25–31.

*Baker, C. K. (2017). What role do peers play in adolescent dating?

Insights from adolescents with a history of dating violence. Vio-

lence Against Women, 23, 178–201.

*Baker, C. K., & Carreño, P. K. (2016). Understanding the role of

technology in adolescent dating and dating violence. Journal of

Child and Family Studies, 25, 308–320.

Banyard, V. L. (2008). Measurement and correlates of prosocial

bystander behavior: The case of interpersonal violence. Violence

and Victims, 23, 83.

Banyard, V. L., Edwards, K. M., & Seibold, W. (2016). Involving

community in sexual violence prevention: Engaging bystanders.

In R. P. Sturmey (Ed.), Handbook of violence and aggression,

Volume 3: Societal interventions (pp. 1–13). Malden, MA: John

Wiley.

Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E. G. (2007). Sexual

violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental

evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 463–481.

Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., Cares, A. C., & Warner, R. (2014).

How do we know if it works? Measuring outcomes in bystander

focused abuse prevention on campuses. Psychology of Violence, 4,

101–115. doi:10.1037/a0033470

Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., Walsh, W. A., Cohn, E. S., &

Ward, S. (2010). Friends of survivors: The community impact of

unwanted sexual experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,

25, 242–256.

Banyard, V. L., Plante, E. G., & Moynihan, M. M. (2004). Bystander

education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual

violence prevention. Journal of Community Psychology, 32,

61–79.

Black, B., & Preble, K. (2016). Parental responses to youths’ reports

of teen dating violence: Recommendations from parents and youth.

Journal of Adolescence, 51, 144–155.

Black, B. M., & Weisz, A. N. (2003). Dating violence: Help-seeking

behaviors of African American middle schoolers. Violence Against

Women, 9, 187–206.

Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M.

L., Merrick, M. T., . . . Stevens, M. R. (2011). The National Inti-

mate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Sum-

mary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention

and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Burn, S. M. (2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention

through bystander intervention. Sex Roles, 60, 779–792.

Cameron, C. A., Byers, E. S., Miller, S. A., McKay, S. L., Pierre, M. S.,

& Glenn, S. (2007). Dating violence prevention in New Brunswick.

New Brunswick: Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family

Violence Research, 1, 1.

Carlson, B. E., McNutt, L. A., Choi, D. Y., & Rose, I. M. (2002).

Intimate partner abuse and mental health: The role of social sup-

port and other protective factors. Violence Against Women, 8,

720–745.

*Casey, E. A., Lindhorst, T., & Storer, H. L. (2017). The situational-

cognitive model of adolescent bystander behavior: Modeling

bystander decision-making in the context of bullying and teen

dating violence. Psychology of Violence, 7, 33.

Casey, E. A., & Ohler, K. (2012). Being a positive bystander: Male

antiviolence allies’ experiences of “stepping up”. Journal of Inter-

personal Violence, 27, 62–83.

*Casey, E. A., Storer, H. L., & Herrenkohl, T. I. (2017). Mapping a

continuum of adolescent helping and bystander behavior within the

64 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 22(1)

context of dating violence and bullying. The American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry. doi:10.1037/ort0000245

Coker, A. L., Bush, H. M., Cook-Craig, P. G., DeGue, S. A., Clear, E.

R., Brancato, C. J., . . . Recktenwald, E. A. (2017). RCT testing

bystander effectiveness to reduce violence. American Journal of

Preventive Medicine, 52, 566–578.

Coker, A. L., Bush, H. M., Fisher, B. S., Swan, S. C., Williams, C. M.,

Clear, E. R., & DeGue, S. (2016). Multi-college bystander inter-

vention evaluation for violence prevention. American Journal of

Preventive Medicine, 50, 295–302.

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 violence among col-

lege students across three campuses. Violence Against Women, 21,

1507–1527.

Cunningham, R. M., Whiteside, L. K., Chermack, S. T., Zimmerman,

M. A., Shope, J. T., Raymond Bingham, C., . . . Walton, M. A.

(2013). Dating violence: Outcomes following a brief motivational

interviewing intervention among at-risk adolescents in an urban

emergency department. Academic Emergency Medicine, 20,

562–569.

Debnam, K. J., Johnson, S. L., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2014). Examining

the association between bullying and adolescent concerns about

teen dating violence. Journal of School Health, 84, 421–428.

doi:10.1111/josh.12170

De Koker, P., Mathews, C., Zuch, M., Bastien, S., & Mason-Jones, A.

J. (2014). A systematic review of interventions for preventing

adolescent intimate partner violence. Journal of Adolescent

Health, 54, 3–13.

Edwards, K. M., Haynes, E. E., & Rodenhizer-Stämpfli, K. A. (2016).

High school youth’s reactions to participating in mixed-

methodological dating violence research. Journal of Empirical

Research on Human Research Ethics, 11, 220–230.

*Edwards, K. M., Rodenhizer-Stämpfli, K. A., & Eckstein, R. P.

(2015). Bystander action in situations of dating and sexual aggres-

sion: A mixed methodological study of high school youth. Journal

of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 2321–2336.

Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2013). Longitudi-

nal associations between teen dating violence victimization and

adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131, 71–78.

Foshee, V., & Langwick, S. (2010). Safe dates: An adolescent dating

abuse prevention curriculum (2nd ed.). Center City, MN:

Hazelden.

*Fry, D. A., Messinger, A. M., Rickert, V. I., O’Connor, M. K.,

Palmetto, N., Lessel, H., & Davidson, L. L. (2014). Adolescent

relationship violence: Help-seeking and help-giving behaviors

among peers. Journal of Urban Health, 91, 320–334.

Gidycz, C. A., Orchowski, L. M., & Berkowitz, A. D. (2011). Pre-

venting sexual aggression among college men: An evaluation of a

social norms and bystander intervention program. Violence

Against Women, 17, 720–742.

Goodman, L., Dutton, M. A., Vankos, N., & Weinfurt, K. (2005).

Women’s resources and use of strategies as risk and protective

factors for reabuse over time. Violence Against Women, 11,

311–336.

Haynie, D. L., Farhat, T., Brooks-Russell, A., Wang, J., Barbieri, B.,

& Iannotti, R. J. (2013). Dating violence perpetration and victimi-

zation among US adolescents: Prevalence, patterns, and associa-

tions with health complaints and substance use. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 53, 194–201.

*Hébert, M., Van Camp, T., Lavoie, F., Blais, M., & Guerrier, M.

(2014). Understanding the hesitancy to disclose teen dating vio-

lence: Correlates of self-efficacy to deal with teen dating violence.

Temida: Casopis O Viktimizaciji, Ljudskim Pravima I Rodu, 17,

43.

Hoefnagels, C., & Zwikker, M. (2001). The bystander dilemma and

child abuse: Extending the Latané and Darley model to domestic

violence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1158–1183.

doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02668.x

Jaime, M. C. D., McCauley, H. L., Tancredi, D. J., Nettiksimmons, J.,

Decker, M. R., Silverman, J. G. . . . Miller, E. (2015). Athletic coa-

ches as violence prevention advocates. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 30, 1090–1111.

Jouriles, E. N., Garrido, E., Rosenfield, D., & McDonald, R. (2009).

Experiences of psychological and physical aggression in adoles-

cent romantic relationships: Links to psychological distress. Child

Abuse & Neglect, 33, 451–460.

*Jouriles, E. N., Rosenfield, D., Yule, K., Sargent, K. S., & McDo-

nald, R. (2016). Predicting high-school students’ bystander beha-

vior in simulated dating violence situations. Journal of Adolescent

Health, 58, 345–351.

Kann, L. (2016). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States,

2015. MMWR. Surveillance Summaries, 65, 1–174.

Kaukinen, C., Anderson, K., Jasinski, J. L., Mustaine, E. E., Powers,

R. A., Hughes Miller, M., . . . Yegidis, B. (2018). The direction of

violence against women research and evaluation. Women & Crim-

inal Justice, 28, 189–211.

*Kervin, D., & Obinna, J. (2010). Youth action strategies in the pri-

mary prevention of teen dating violence. Journal of Family Social

Work, 13, 362–374.

Kim, J. E., Weinstein, E. C., & Selman, R. L. (2017). Romantic

relationship advice from anonymous online helpers: The peer sup-

port adolescents exchange. Youth & Society, 49, 369–392.

Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A

research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimiza-

tion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455.

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1969). Bystanders “apathy”. American

Scientist, 57, 244–268.

Martin, C. E., Houston, A. M., Mmari, K. N., & Decker, M. R. (2012).

Urban teens and young adults describe drama, disrespect, dating

violence and help-seeking preferences. Maternal and Child Health

Journal, 16, 957–966.

*McCauley, H. L., Tancredi, D. J., Silverman, J. G., Decker, M. R.,

Austin, S. B., McCormick, M. C., . . . Miller, E. (2013). Gender-

equitable attitudes, bystander behavior, and recent abuse perpetra-

tion against heterosexual dating partners of male high school

athletes. American Journal of Public Health, 103, 1882–1887.

McMahon, S., & Farmer, G. L. (2011). An updated measure for asses-

sing subtle rape myths. Social Work Research, 35, 71–81.

*Miller, E., Das, M., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Virata, M. C.

D., Nettiksimmons, J., . . . Verma, R. (2014). Evaluation of a

Debnam and Mauer 65

gender-based violence prevention program for student athletes in

Mumbai, India. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 758–778.

*Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Decker, M. R., Virata,

M. C. D., Anderson, H. A., . . . Silverman, J. G. (2012). “Coaching

boys into men”: A cluster-randomized controlled trial of a dating

violence prevention program. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51,

431–438.

*Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Decker, M. R., Virata,

M. C. D., Anderson, H. A., . . . Silverman, J. G. (2013). One-year

follow-up of a coach-delivered dating violence prevention pro-

gram: A cluster randomized controlled trial. American Journal of

Preventive Medicine, 45, 108–112.

Molidor, C., & Tolman, R. M. (1998). Gender and contextual factors

in adolescent dating violence. Violence Against Women, 4,

180–194.

Nahapetyan, L., Orpinas, P., Song, X., & Holland, K. (2014).

Longitudinal association of suicidal ideation and physical

dating violence among high school students. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 43, 629–640. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-

0006-6

Nickerson, A. B., Aloe, A. M., Livingston, J. A., & Feeley, T. H.

(2014). Measurement of the bystander intervention model for

bullying and sexual harassment. Journal of Adolescence, 37,

391–400.

Palmer, J. E., Nicksa, S. C., & McMahon, S. (2018). Does who you

know affect how you act? The impact of relationships on bystander

intervention in interpersonal violence situations. Journal of Inter-

personal Violence, 33, 2623–2642.

Palm Reed, K. M., Hines, D. A., Armstrong, J. L., & Cameron, A. Y.

(2015). Experimental evaluation of a bystander prevention pro-

gram for sexual assault and dating violence. Psychology of Vio-

lence, 5, 95.

Parker, E. M., Debnam, K., Pas, E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2016).

Exploring the link between alcohol and Marijuana use and teen

dating violence victimization among high school students: The

influence of school context. Health Education & Behavior, 43,

528–536.

*Plourde, C., Shore, N., Herrick, P., Morrill, A., Cattabriga, G.,

Bottino, L., . . . Stromgren, C. (2016). You the man: Theater as

bystander education in dating violence. Arts & Health, 8,

229–247.

Pulerwitz, J., & Barker, G. (2008). Measuring attitudes toward gender

norms among young men in Brazil: Development and psycho-

metric evaluation of the GEM Scale. Men and Masculinities, 10,

322–338.

Rothman, E. F., Decker, M. R., & Silverman, J. G. (2006). Evaluation

of a teen dating violence social marketing campaign: Lessons

learned when the null hypothesis was accepted. New Directions

for Evaluation, 2006, 33–44.

*Sargent, K. S., Jouriles, E. N., Rosenfield, D., & McDonald, R.

(2017). A high school-based evaluation of TakeCARE, a video

bystander program to prevent adolescent relationship violence.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 633–643.

Sears, H. A., Byers, E. S., Whelan, J. J., & Saint-Pierre, M. (2006). “If

it hurts you, then it is not a joke” Adolescents’ ideas about girls’

and boys’ use and experience of abusive behavior in dating rela-

tionships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1191–1207.

Shorey, R. C., Fite, P. J., Choi, H., Cohen, J. R., Stuart, G. L., &

Temple, J. R. (2015). Dating violence and substance use as long-

itudinal predictors of adolescents’ risky sexual behavior. Preven-

tion Science, 16, 853–861.

Storer, H. L., Casey, E., & Herrenkohl, T. (2016). Efficacy of bystan-

der programs to prevent dating abuse among youth and young

adults: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse,

17, 256–269.

*Storer, H. L., Casey, E. A., & Herrenkohl, T. I. (2017). Developing

“whole school” bystander interventions: The role of school-

settings in influencing adolescents responses to dating violence

and bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 74, 87–95.

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B.

(1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2) development and

preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17,

283–316.

Taylor, B. G., Stein, N. D., Mumford, E. A., & Woods, D. (2013).

Shifting Boundaries: An experimental evaluation of a dating vio-

lence prevention program in middle schools. Prevention science,

14, 64–76.

*Van Camp, T., Hébert, M., Guidi, E., Lavoie, F., & Blais, M. (2014).

Teens’ self-efficacy to deal with dating violence as victim, perpetra-

tor or bystander. International Review of Victimology, 20, 289–303.

Waldrop, A. E., & Resick, P. A. (2004). Coping among adult female

victims of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 19,

291–302.

Weisz, A. N., & Black, B. M. (2009). Help-seeking and help-giving

for teen dating violence. The Prevention Researcher, 16, 12–17.

Weitzman, A., Cowan, S., & Walsh, K. (2017). Bystander interven-

tions on behalf of sexual assault and intimate partner violence

victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. doi:10.1177/

0886260517696873

Wekerle, C., Leung, E., Wall, A. M., MacMillan, H., Boyle, M.,

Trocme, N., & Waechter, R. (2009). The contribution of childhood

emotional abuse to teen dating violence among child protective

services-involved youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 45–58.

Author Biographies

Katrina J. Debnam is an assistant professor in the Schools of Nursing

and Education at the University of Virginia. She holds an MPH in

health behavior and health education and a doctorate in behavioral and

community health. For over 10 years, Dr. Debnam led numerous

school-based randomized-controlled trials at Johns Hopkins Bloom-

berg School of Public Health strengthening her expertise in mixed-

methods research, including hierarchical linear modeling and the

conduct and analysis of data from focus groups and interviews. Her

research focuses on the intersection of health and education with a

strong concentration on conditions that disproportionately affect com-

munities of color. Specifically, her research interests include adoles-

cent violence prevention and dating abuse, school climate, health

disparities, and faith-based programs for positive youth development.

She is currently the Co-I/Co-PI on multiple-funded studies, including

one to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention designed to

66 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 22(1)

address the overrepresentation of students of color in discipline and

exclusionary practices.

Victoria Mauer is a doctoral student in community psychology at the

University of Virginia and an Institute for Education Sciences (IES)

predoctoral fellow in the Virginia Education Science Training pro-

gram. She received a bachelor of arts in psychology from New York

University in 2011 and a master of arts in counseling psychology from

Northwestern University in 2014. Victoria conducts community-based

research on prevention of gender-based violence, disproportionate

minority contact in the juvenile justice system, and school-based pro-

gramming to increase prosocial connections among adolescents. Her

work is dedicated to researching community and school-based pro-

gramming targeting problematic racial and gender norms that

marginalize youth.

Debnam and Mauer 67

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness false /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages false /ColorImageMinResolution 266 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Average /ColorImageResolution 175 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages false /GrayImageMinResolution 266 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Average /GrayImageResolution 175 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages false /MonoImageMinResolution 900 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Average /MonoImageResolution 175 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (CGATS TR 001) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ENU <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> >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AllowImageBreaks true /AllowTableBreaks true /ExpandPage false /HonorBaseURL true /HonorRolloverEffect false /IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false /IncludeHeaderFooter false /MarginOffset [ 0 0 0 0 ] /MetadataAuthor () /MetadataKeywords () /MetadataSubject () /MetadataTitle () /MetricPageSize [ 0 0 ] /MetricUnit /inch /MobileCompatible 0 /Namespace [ (Adobe) (GoLive) (8.0) ] /OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false /PageOrientation /Portrait /RemoveBackground false /ShrinkContent true /TreatColorsAs /MainMonitorColors /UseEmbeddedProfiles false /UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /BleedOffset [ 9 9 9 9 ] /ConvertColors /ConvertToRGB /DestinationProfileName (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /DestinationProfileSelector /UseName /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /ClipComplexRegions true /ConvertStrokesToOutlines false /ConvertTextToOutlines false /GradientResolution 300 /LineArtTextResolution 1200 /PresetName ([High Resolution]) /PresetSelector /HighResolution /RasterVectorBalance 1 >> /FormElements true /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles true /MarksOffset 9 /MarksWeight 0.125000 /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PageMarksFile /RomanDefault /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] /SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [288 288] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice