|
Abstract
|
Recent research has documented the high-risk nature of off-campus parties involving college students (Vander Ven, 2011; Jakeman, Silver, & Molasso, 2014), which may involve high-risk drinking, sexual assault, violence, drug overdose, student injury, and even death (Harford, Wechsler, & Muthen, 2003; Hingson, Zha, & Weitzman, 2009; Marzell, Bavarian, Paschall, Mair, & Saltz, 2015). Colleges and universities have attempted to deal with the risks posed by off-campus parties with various efforts, including policies restricting the party environment, efforts to build community coalitions, as well as the creation of targeted education and training programs for students (DeJong & Langford, 2002; Berkowitz, 2003).
Perhaps one of the most well-known efforts to address issues of injury, violence, and sexual assault at colleges and universities is peer and bystander intervention training. Bystander intervention programs are diverse, involving a variety of strategies and foci. While some programs specifically address sexual assault (McMahon, Postmus, Warrener, & Koenick, 2014; AlegrÃa-Flores, Raker, Pleasants, Weaver, & Weinberger, 2015), others target issues associated with environments where students consume alcohol (Johnson, 2009). These programs aim to facilitate and encourage student intervention in problematic situations, especially in environments where university officials may not be present, such as off-campus parties.
Studies have determined that bystander intervention depends on a variety of factors, perhaps most importantly, that bystanders recognize the situation as problematic and that they be willing to intervene (Latané & Darley, 1970; Hoefnagels & Zwikker, 2001). Research indicates that when individuals feel confident that they are able to assist in the situation at hand, they are more likely to engage in intervention. This confidence can stem from factors such as knowing the individual(s) involved, having been trained in the proper response(s), or viewing oneself as a responsible party in the situation (Rabow, Newcomb, Monto, & Hernandez, 1990; Thomas & Seibold, 1995; Hoefnagels & Zwikker, 2001).
With this in mind, we ask: "Does status as a party guest or host impact one's willingness to engage in bystander intervention behaviors?" This article seeks to examine students' willingness to engage in a variety of methods of intervention at off-campus parties. We hypothesize that party hosts will be more willing to intervene in dangerous or problematic situations than party guests, given that they likely own or inhabit the party location and are more likely than guests to know the other attendees. Further, party hosts report being aware of the legal responsibilities incurred as a result of hosting a party (Jakeman, McClure, & Silver, 2015). This combination of hosts (a) viewing themselves as responsible parties, (b) feeling empowered within their place of residence, and (c) being likely to know or be acquainted with other party attendees provides theoretical support for the hypothesis....
Language: en |