Page 37 - Jan/Feb 2017 FTM

behavior online, and among the few studies that do, we know only what people report they would do and not what they actually do.
It can be argued that the online nature of technology-facilitated sexual violence, including the anonymity it may afford, would uniquely impact bystander behavior. The bystander model (Latané & Darley, 1968; 1970) suggests that bystanders can experience a “diffusion of personal responsibility” for taking action if they believe others to have already done so, and that we are more likely to intervene when the victim is someone with whom we have a relationship (perhaps a friend, close acquaintance, or classmate). What role does anonymity play in someone taking personal responsibility for acting? Take, for example, the opening scenario and assume that I am the bystander. How many other people have been sent this photo? Is it possible to know how every other recipient has responded? How might this impact how and whether
or not I choose to act? And how does
my relationship with the victim impact my decision? Do I know the girl in the photo? If she is unknown to me, am I
less likely to act? Will I feel less guilty not acting than if she were someone I knew? Is there a name connected to the victim or is she an anonymous person that makes reaching out to help even more complicated (perhaps impossible)? Furthermore, if I am the bystander, what do I know and understand about consent and the sharing of private information in the first place? Do I even recognize this as a sexually violent or criminal act?
How can we move forward in this field of study?
How can we teach safe and effective online intervention when there is limited evidence to suggest how online forms of sexual violence are experienced, and how bystanders recognize and respond to it in this context? What
can help us to arrive at a better understanding?
We currently know little about the sexual nature of abuse and harassment that occurs online. Much of the research in this area focuses on cyberbullying,
an all-encompassing term that fails
to recognize the sexual nature of
much of the violence, vitriol, and
hateful language encountered in this context. Furthermore, much of the cyberbullying literature focuses on child and adolescent experiences of violence (often in school settings) rather than the experiences of young adults—a group
we know to report high rates of sexual violence victimization (Brennan & Taylor Butts, 2008). Finally, we know little about the different ways in which sexual violence facilitated by new technologies and occurring online is experienced according to variables such as gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation,
mental health, disability, social class, immigration status, and/or homelessness (Fairbairn, Bivens, & Dawson, 2013).
Qualitative research will play an important role in helping us understand the lived experience of technology- facilitated sexual assault, and for exploring how we decide something constitutes a sexually violent act in
this context (including what is known about consent, privacy, law, etc.). Qualitative methods can also serve to generate theoretical propositions about bystander behavior online. Observations in naturalistic settings will shed light
on what people actually do rather than what they report they would do.
Finally, we need formal evaluation
of prevention initiatives that address sexual violence and new technologies, and we need to consider looking to online spaces like social media as tools for prevention (for example, campaigns engaging in social media). We can draw on user perspectives and expertise to explore strategies that may be more effective in this context than those traditionally offered offline (Fairbairn, Bivens, & Dawson, 2013).
Sonya Strohm,
MS, is a doctoral candidate in the Family Relations & Human Development Program at University of Guelph, in Ontario, Canada.
She has an MS in Health Research Methodology, and is the previous coordinator of an educational program aimed at increasing dialogue about sexual violence among newcomers to Canada.
References
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, 62- 79. doi: 10.1002/jcop.10078
Banyard, V. L., Plante, E. G., & Moynihan, M. M. (2005). Rape prevention through bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention (Document No. 208701). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ nij/grants/208701.pdf, National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
Brennan, S. & Taylor-Butts, A. (2008). Sexual assault in Canada, 2004. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
Burn, S. M. (2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander intervention. Sex Roles, 60, 779- 792. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9581-5
Fairbairn, J., Bivens, R., & Dawson, M. (2013). Sexual violence and social media: Building a framework for prevention. Ottawa, ON: Crime Prevention Ottawa/Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women.
Latané, B. & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 215-221.
Latané, B. & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Latané, B. & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89(2), 308-324.
Rosenthal, A. M. (1964). Thirty-eight witnesses. New York: McGraw-Hill.
JANUARY / FEBRUARY 2017 35