Gender-based violence is violence aimed at someone because of the gender with which they identify (Morrison et al.,
2007). It is one of the most common types of violence and it disproportionately targets females (Ellsberg et al.,
2020). Research examining gender-based violence can be informed by an understanding of how it develops among adolescents in key social contexts such as schools. Many school programs designed to reduce this violence focus on the role of the bystander (e.g., Amar et al.,
2012; Banyard et al.,
2007; Cook-Craig et al.,
2014; De La Rue et al.,
2017; Midgett et al.,
2015; Miller et al.,
2012). This is because most school-based violence takes place in the presence of others (Polanin et al.,
2012). Little is known about the effectiveness of these school-based interventions in the United Kingdom and how they impact on bystanders’ attitudes, beliefs, motivations towards intervening, and intervention behavior when they witness gender-based violence. The current study is the first large-scale, multilevel evaluation of Mentors in Violence Prevention (Katz,
1995), a mentor-led program designed to challenge gender-based violence and violence more generally using a bystander approach, in the United Kingdom. It aimed to examine changes in bystander outcomes that were identified using a robust theoretical model of decision-making (Pagani et al.,
2022a).
Within the literature, gender-based violence has been studied in many forms ranging from non-intimate verbal and emotional violence, to dating and relationship abuse, to sexual violence (for recent reviews see De La Rue et al.,
2017; Jouriles et al.,
2018; Lester et al.,
2017; Kettrey & Marx,
2019; Kovalenko et al.,
2020). It is important to note that violence itself can manifest in different ways, involving different motivations from different perpetrators which are often complex and difficult to measure. For the purposes of the present study, the term gender-based violence reflects verbal and emotional violence which can involve direct and indirect forms such as name-calling, making fun, spreading rumors, ‘putting down’, and both physical and sexual violence, including pushing, hitting, fighting, sexting, touching, and coercive intercourse (Debnam & Mauer,
2021; Katz et al.,
2011; Miller et al.,
2012). These forms of violence can occur between boys and girls, both within and outside of romantic relationships. The term gender-based violence also incorporates domestic violence with regards to those in a romantic relationship as the sample explored in this thesis was under the age of 16 (Home Office,
2013).
Gender-based Violence and a Bystander Approach
Gender-based violence can reflect a motivation to assert power, whether that be within romantic relationships (Debnam & Mauer,
2021), or within peer groups (Skipper & Fox,
2021). This motivation for power can stem from stereotypical attitudes and normative beliefs pertaining to gender identity regarding females as subordinate in society and “lesser” than males (Hindes & Fileborn,
2020; Koss et al.,
1994). Schools provide an ideal context in which to examine interactions and relationships between boys and girls because they are the dominant social setting for adolescents. Furthermore, adolescence is an important period in which to examine these relationships as it is a time when gender roles are explored and interpersonal relationships are negotiated (Katz,
2018; Skipper & Fox,
2021).
One way to examine stereotypical attitudes and normative beliefs in gender-based violence contexts is to examine how they manifest and develop in the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of those who are present when gender-based violence takes place. Indeed, research has identified that bystanders are present in 85–88% of violent situations in schools (Hawkins et al.,
2001). How bystanders react is therefore key to understanding how situations of violence can be challenged since they have the power to facilitate (encourage the perpetrator) or inhibit (help the victim) a violent situation.
There are numerous school-based programs designed to promote bystander intervention in gender-based violence contexts (for meta-analyses and systematic reviews see: DeGue et al.,
2014; Jouriles et al.,
2018; Lundgren & Amin,
2015; Katz & Moore,
2013; Kettrey & Marx,
2019; Kovalenko et al.,
2020; Stanley et al.,
2015; Storer et al.,
2016). Legislative, policy, and strategic advances have encouraged the implementation of these programs within school contexts. Indeed, the 2013 Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (Campus SaVE Act:
2013) made gender-based violence programs in the United States (US) of America mandatory. Most programs have therefore been pioneered and evaluated in the US, with fewer programs and evaluations elsewhere, such as the United Kingdom. Consequently, less is known about the effectiveness of gender-based violence programs in countries outside of the US (Kovalenko et al.,
2020).
While the United Kingdom does not have legislation equivalent to the Campus SaVE Act, evaluations into the effectiveness of programs targeting gender-based violence do exist (e.g., Bell & Stanley,
2006; Fox et al.,
2020; Hester & Westmarland,
2005; Maxwell et al.,
2010; Scottish Executive,
2002; Stanley et al.,
2011; Williams & Neville,
2013). However, evidence on the effectiveness of gender-based violence programs that focus on bystanders in secondary schools is scarce within the United Kingdom, with only one peer-reviewed qualitative evaluation existing (Williams & Neville,
2017). Other evaluations exist, but are either not peer-reviewed (e.g., Fox et al.,
2020; Fox & Vickers,
2017; Mentors in Violence Prevention Progress Report,
2019; Williams & Neville,
2013) or do not specifically focus on bystander outcomes concerning gender-based violence (Hunter et al.,
2021). Methodologically, there is also the need for larger evaluations that include both pre and post intervention testing, control schools, and designs that address the potential for school level differences. These issues are directly addressed in the current study.
Mentors in Violence Prevention
Mentors in Violence Prevention (Katz,
1995) was originally pioneered in universities in the US. It aims to empower bystanders to challenge negative gendered attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. The original program was targeted towards male university sports athletes. The remit of Mentors in Violence Prevention has since evolved, and its implementation has expanded to settings such as high schools and involves training both boys and girls as role models. Mentors in Violence Prevention is also now often utilized to tackle violence beyond the original focus on gender-based violence (Katz,
2018). In Scotland, older students in schools (mentors) act as potential role-models for younger students (mentees), and lead younger students through a series of Mentors in Violence Prevention lessons. Mentors in Violence Prevention implements a “train the trainer” approach whereby school staff attend a two-day training course that is run by development officers. Once they have received this initial training, school staff assume the position of Mentors in Violence Prevention leads and go on to train mentors (schools students) to implement lessons, utilising the same training that they themselves received (Mentors in Violence Prevention Progress Report,
2016). For each lesson, there is a lesson plan with a clear structure for mentors to follow. Lessons are usually incorporated into a normal school lesson with mixed gender classes (the size and structure depending on that of the school in question), replacing subjects such as Social Education. Lessons involve leading younger students through a hypothetical scenario which depicts a situation of gender-based violence or violence more generally. Situations include verbal, emotional, physical, and/or sexual violence. Following the presentation of the scenario, mentors engage the younger students in a “train of thought” about the scenario, allowing them to consider their beliefs, attitudes, and thought patterns. Finally, seven possible bystander reactions are presented, and they are invited to discuss the positive and negative consequences of each one. Mentors in Violence Prevention has five core values which mentors are encouraged to cover in each of their lessons: violence through a gendered lens, using a bystander approach, developing leadership, recognising the scope of violence, and challenging victim blaming.
Mentors in Violence Prevention has been implemented in the United Kingdom since 2012, first in Scotland and then in England in 2015. Both university and high school evaluations have been conducted in the US (Beardall,
2007; Cissner,
2009; Eriksen,
2015; Heisterkamp et al.,
2011; Katz et al.,
2011; Ward,
2001) and UK (Fox et al.,
2020; Fox & Vickers,
2017; Hunter et al.,
2021; Mentors in Violence Prevention Progress Report,
2019; Williams & Neville,
2013,
2017) respectively. Positive effects have been reported in relation to attitudes towards intervening (Beardall,
2007; Cissner,
2009; Eriksen,
2015; Fox et al.,
2020; Heisterkamp et al.,
2011; Katz et al.,
2011; Mentors in Violence Prevention Progress Report,
2019; Ward,
2001; Williams & Neville,
2013,
2017), self-efficacy towards intervening (Beardall,
2007; Cissner,
2009; Eriksen,
2015; Fox & Vickers,
2017; Ward,
2001; Williams & Neville,
2017), and intentions to intervene (Cissner,
2009; Eriksen,
2015; Heisterkamp et al.,
2011; Katz et al.,
2011; Mentors in Violence Prevention Progress Report,
2019; Ward,
2001; Williams & Neville,
2017). Two studies also noted overall decreases in school rates of gender-based violence after the intervention (Cissner,
2009; Heisterkamp et al.,
2011). However, not all studies have included control schools (Beardall,
2007; Eriksen,
2015; Fox et al.,
2020; Fox & Vickers,
2017; Mentors in Violence Prevention Progress Report,
2019; Williams & Neville
2017), or pre and post testing methods (Beardall,
2007; Fox & Vickers,
2017; Hunter et al.,
2021; Katz et al.,
2011; Mentors in Violence Prevention Progress Report,
2019; Williams & Neville,
2017), which are important in order to draw reliable comparisons (between similar schools or the same school at different time points) that provide a more robust and accurate insight into the effectiveness of an intervention (e.g., Kovalenko et al.,
2020). Many studies also included small numbers (two or three) of intervention schools (Beardall,
2007; Cissner,
2009; Eriksen,
2015; Heisterkamp et al.,
2011; Katz et al.,
2011; Williams & Neville,
2013,
2017). Some of these studies that did not use control or pre and post testing methods, and included a small number of schools, found strong, positive Mentors in Violence Prevention effects or perceived effects (Beardall,
2007; Katz et al.,
2011; Williams & Neville,
2013), whereas others found more mixed or even null effects (Eriksen,
2015; Fox et al.,
2020; Hunter et al.,
2021; Ward,
2001; Williams & Neville,
2013). Some of these latter studies also examined larger numbers of schools (Fox et al.,
2020; Hunter et al.,
2021; Ward,
2001). Nonetheless, other studies that have used control schools, did find positive intervention effects (Cissner,
2009; Heisterkamp et al.,
2011), however, these studies included a small number of schools: two and four respectively.
Studies have examined the effectiveness of bystander intervention programs by focussing on the individual bystander and therefore changes in individual social cognitive factors that are influential when bystanders are making the decision over whether or not to intervene (e.g., Debnam & Mauer,
2021; Hoxmeier et al.,
2018; Sjögren et al.,
2021; Thornberg & Wänström,
2018). These factors are components of theoretical models of decision-making, such as the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen,
1988,
1991) and the Prototype Willingness Model (Gibbons & Gerrard,
1995,
1997). Unfortunately, many of these studies have only examined some of the factors that comprise these theoretical models, leading to a partial picture of bystander decision-making. There is therefore a need for more studies to examine all factors that comprise theoretical models of bystander decision-making (Pagani et al.,
2022a). Similarly, there is also a need for studies to assess changes in all these factors.
This Prototype Willingness Model has been tested to identify the predictors of bystander intervention behavior in gender-based violence contexts (Pagani et al.,
2022a). Those constructs that were found to successfully predict bystander intervention were: willingness to intervene in less serious gender-based violence; positive attitudes (positive evaluations of intervening); negative attitudes (negative evaluations of intervening); subjective norms (beliefs about other bystanders intervening); self-efficacy (perceived ability to intervene); prototype perceptions (identification with the typical bystander who intervenes); moral disengagement (beliefs about whether intervening is the right thing to do). Some of these factors (positive and negative attitudes towards intervening, prototype perceptions concerning self-comparison to the typical bystander who intervenes regularly, willingness to intervene) have been novelly tested in the context of bystander decision-making (Pagani et al.,
2022a). However, these factors have been shown to predict decision-making in a range of other situations, including speeding, binge-drinking, smoking, and consuming a high-fat diet (Elliott et al.,
2015; McCartan et al.,
2018). Other factors (subjective norms concerning beliefs about other bystanders’ intervention behaviors, self-efficacy concerning confidence in one’s own ability to intervene, and moral disengagement by justifying gender-based violence) have also been extensively examined in the field of bystander decision-making (e.g., Rosval,
2013, Sjögren et al.,
2021; Thornberg & Jungert,
2014). These factors have been examined within other theoretical models of bystander decision-making, such as the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen,
1991).
The constructs that did not significantly predict bystander intervention behavior (Pagani et al.
2022a) were: intentions (likelihood to intervene); willingness to intervene in more serious gender-based violence; and perceived behavioral control (belief about whether intervening is under one’s own control). However, willingness predicts behavior in a range of other situations (e.g., Elliott et al.,
2015). Like subjective norms, perceived behavioral control is a construct of the Theory of Planned Behavior, however, it has been replaced or conflated with self-efficacy in the bystander literature (Rosval,
2013; Salmivalli,
2010; Sjögren et al.,
2021). However, factor analytic studies have illustrated their independent effects in predicting intentions and behavior (Armitage & Conner,
1999a,
1999b). The predictive ability of intentions has been examined widely in different bystander situations (e.g., Leone & Parrott,
2019; McMahon et al.,
2015; Rosval,
2013). Therefore, the inclusion of these factors would ensure a theoretically comprehensive range of social cognitions found to predict many other health-related behaviors (Elliott et al.,
2015; Hoxmeier et al.,
2018; McCartan et al.,
2018; McCartan & Elliott,
2018; Rosval,
2013).