Content uploaded by Anastasiia G Kovalenko
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anastasiia G Kovalenko on Mar 27, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241239452
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
1 –28
© The Author(s) 2024
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/08862605241239452
journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv
Original Research
Bystander Intervention
in Football and Sports.
A Quasi-Experimental
Feasibility Study of a
Bystander Violence
Prevention Program in
the United Kingdom
Anastasiia G. Kovalenko1
and Rachel A. Fenton1
Abstract
In recent years, social campaigns and high-profile cases have brought
increased attention to violence against women. Athletes can be role
models, shaping both prosocial and antisocial attitudes. Their engagement
in violence prevention could be an effective tool to tackle violence against
women through bystander intervention. This part of a mixed-method
feasibility study reports on the quantitative evaluation of an evidence-led
bystander program, Football Onside, implemented at a football club in South
West England in June 2018 to February 2020. The study employed a quasi-
experimental design with intervention and control groups. Football coaches
and club members (n = 50) completed measures of rape and domestic abuse
myths, bystander intent and efficacy, self-reported bystander behaviors,
readiness for change, perceptions of peer helping and myth acceptance, law
knowledge, and program evaluation. Fidelity was also assessed. The analysis
1University of Exeter, Devon, UK
Corresponding Author:
Anastasiia G. Kovalenko, University of Exeter Medical School, St. Luke’s Campus, Heavitree
Road, Exeter, Devon EX1 2LU, UK.
Email: a.g.kovalenko@exeter.ac.uk
1239452JIVXXX10.1177/08862605241239452Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceKovalenko and Fenton
research-article2024
2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
compared between- and within-group differences in mean changes over time
using mixed-effects models. Participant ratings of learning outcomes were
high, and fidelity was maintained throughout the intervention. Between-
group comparison revealed mixed results, with greater improvements in the
intervention group for bystander intent and efficacy at post-test and follow-
up, domestic abuse myths at post-test, and rape myth acceptance at follow-
up. Model contrasts for within intervention group revealed improvements
in rape and domestic abuse myth acceptance, bystander intent and efficacy,
perceived law knowledge at both time points, and perceived peer myths
and helping at post-test. At follow-up, intervention participants reported
significantly higher engagement in bystander behaviors. No significant
effects were found for perceived importance of legal knowledge. Our
research highlights the potential efficacy of a bystander program tailored for
football club members. Cluster-randomized control trials are now required
to examine bystander attitudes and behavior change processes among
professional athletes.
Keywords
domestic violence, sexual assault, prevention, intervention, sexual
harassment
The United Kingdom has entered a pivotal moment in history in relation to
combatting violence against women and girls (VAWG) in the wake of one
particular high-profile abduction and murder in March 2021, which has
invigorated the national conversation and consciousness. Understood as a
cause and consequence of gender inequality, VAWG is a public health epi-
demic and a global human rights issue (UN, 1993; WHO, 2010). In the United
Kingdom, for example, one in four women experience domestic abuse, and
one in five experience any kind of sexual assault in their lifetime (Home
Office, 2019). Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, VAWG,
especially domestic abuse, has intensified globally (UN Women, 2021) and
has been referred to as “the shadow pandemic.” For example, in April to June
2020, roughly one-fifth (21%, 20%, and 19%) of all offences recorded by the
police in the United Kingdom were flagged as domestic abuse, which is a
5%-point increase compared with the same period in the previous year (ONS,
2020). In the year ending March 2022, the police recorded the highest num-
ber of sexual offences in England and Wales, with 86% sexual assault victims
being female (ONS, 2023a), and it is estimated that only one in five cases is
Kovalenko and Fenton 3
reported to the police (ONS, 2020). Similarly, in the year ending March 2023,
73.5% of police-recorded domestic abuse victims in England and Wales were
female (ONS, 2023b). The elimination of VAWG is a strategic priority both
nationally (VAWG Strategy—Home Office) and in terms of the United
Kingdom’s international legal obligations (UN, Convention on the
Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW),
Council of Europe). Yet while some positive legislative initiatives are being
delivered, such as the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, the criminal justice system
reveals an ever-increasing inability to provide redress with charging, prose-
cution, and convictions for sexual offences at a 10-year low (CPS, 2019). The
focus on prevention and, in particular, how to engage men in prevention has
thus never been more relevant in UK society than in this potentially transfor-
mative moment.
One prevention strategy gaining traction in the United Kingdom is
bystander intervention. Bystanders can play an important role in the preven-
tion of VAWG as agents of cultural change who intervene to disrupt violence
and the social norms that facilitate it (Banyard et al., 2004; Orchowski &
Berkowitz, 2022). The historical cultural prominence of sport—and, in the
United Kingdom, of football (soccer) in particular—and its vindication of
traditional models of masculinity linked to violence (Adams, 2011) render it
an “unparalleled platform” (Katz, 2018) for VAWG prevention. There is a
paucity of knowledge about bystander approaches and sports settings, with
no studies to date evaluating the bystander approach in a professional sport
setting in the United Kingdom and only very limited evidence elsewhere.
With this gap in mind, this study seeks to add to the literature by presenting
findings from a controlled quasi-experimental feasibility study of a bystander
program, “Football Onside,” with follow-up at 9 months. “Football Onside”
is a bystander intervention for the prevention of sexual and domestic abuse,
tailored to a male-dominated professional football setting in the United
Kingdom for the first time.
Sports, Masculinity, and VAWG
There is a complex, intersecting, and longstanding association between sport,
misogynistic or hegemonic masculinity, and the reproduction of violence-
supportive norms and violence perpetration (Dyson & Flood, 2008; Flood,
2011). A body of literature has found that male college athletes have a higher
affinity for rape myth acceptance (Boeringer, 1999; Bogen et al., 2020) and
are an at-risk group for sexual violence (SV) perpetration (Crosset et al.,
1996; McCray, 2015; Young et al., 2017) and victimization (Cheever &
Eisenberg, 2022).
4 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
Male professional sports settings have been the sites for high-profile inci-
dents (see Katz, 2018), and some surveys have shown an increasing number
of reports of rape and domestic abuse cases among professional athletes in
contact sports (NBC, 2014; O’Hear, 2001). In the United Kingdom, trials of
professional sportsmen for rape have fueled high-profile public debate and
controversy within the legal community (McGlynn, 2018). In addition to
prominent incidents, very limited research has indicated that domestic abuse
rates may increase after high stakes sporting events such as the World Cup
and Euro Cup (Kirby et al., 2013; Trendl et al., 2021) and national rival team
football matches (Williams et al., 2013). This has, however, been conten-
tious, in particular, due to the heterogeneity of studies, the challenges in mea-
suring, recording, and reporting national domestic violence (DV) data, the
lack of evidence outside the United Kingdom and North America, and the
limited assessment of the contributing risk factors (Forsdike et al., 2022).
Educators are agreed about the importance of engaging men in prevention
efforts (Flood, 2011). As sports define the cultural mainstream with team
sports allowing men “to do [] gender in the most culturally esteemed way”
(Adams, 2011, p. 580), sports settings simultaneously occupy a critical space
and present an opportunity for prevention work. Athletes can be positive
societal role models (O’Donohue & Schewe, 2019), promoting prosocial
behaviors and healthy ways to express masculinity and disapproval of the
social norms, which shore up VAWG (Carlson et al., 2015; Katz et al., 2011).
Coaches can be influential positive nonparental role models (Fraser-
Thomas et al., 2008). Further, sports teams may be encoded with strong social
bonds, which can be mobilized to promote positive intervention (McMahon
& Farmer, 2009). Indeed, social expectations around masculinity are related
to both perpetration and men’s willingness and likelihood to intervene as
bystanders (Brown & Messman-Moore, 2010; Carlson, 2008; Fabiano et al.,
2003; Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 2008). Consequently, there is a well-estab-
lished history of working with athletes and coaches as “exemplars of tradi-
tional masculine success” (Katz, 2018) to prevent VAWG (e.g., Mentors in
Violence Prevention (MVP)—Katz, 1995, 2018; Coaching Boys into Men
(CBIM)—Miller et al., 2012; Wingman 101—Exner-Cortens & Cummings,
2017).
Bystander Interventions
Sports settings align well with bystander intervention because the bystander
approach focuses on prosocial framing and engaging men as allies (Flood,
2011). The increasingly promising evidence base is situated predominantly in
school and college settings in the United States (Kettrey & Marx, 2019;
Kovalenko et al., 2022; Mujal et al., 2021). In the United Kingdom, the
Kovalenko and Fenton 5
evidence base is in its infancy, but there is some preliminary evidence in
school and university settings (Bovill & White, 2022; Fenton & Mott, 2018;
Williams & Neville, 2017) and, more recently, in a general population setting
(Gainsbury et al., 2020). Overall, the literature reports improvements across
a range of associated measures (for reviews see Kettrey & Marx, 2019;
Kovalenko et al., 2022; Mujal et al., 2021). However, there are limitations:
only a small number of evaluations include a comparison group, backlash is
rarely measured, and the majority have a follow-up period shorter than
7 months, which might explain why few report higher levels of self-reported
bystander behaviors (Kovalenko et al., 2022; Mujal et al., 2021). Bystander
programs targeting athletes have been predominantly implemented in student
populations and report improved bystander intent and efficacy, rape myth
acceptance, and perpetration rates (Garrity, 2011; Jaime et al., 2018; Miller
et al., 2012; Moynihan et al., 2011b). The findings for behavior change have
been mixed, showing small improvements or no significant change (Exner-
Cortens & Cummings, 2017; Garrity, 2011). Research evidence on bystander
intervention in professional sports, however, is extremely limited (Corboz
et al., 2016; Powell, 2011) and lacks rigorous evaluation.
Bystander interventions often intend to increase the knowledge of sub-
stantive law, but this is undertheorized in terms of its contribution to change
and is rarely reported on (Fenton et al., 2016). Backlash, understood as move-
ment by more than one standard deviation (SD) in the undesired direction
(Moynihan et al., 2011a), is also rarely reported but is important, as interven-
tions may produce unintended effects.
Community Trusts
Capitalizing on the normative status of football in society and the extent of
outreach by football clubs in the United Kingdom (via Community Trusts1),
the CEO of a Community Trust was approached as a potential partner in the
development, implementation and evaluation of the “Football Onside”
program.
Researchers may encounter institutional and cultural resistance imple-
menting violence prevention programs (Brackenridge, 2002; Parent &
Fortier, 2018). Nevertheless, overcoming these barriers is possible with
strong support from team leaders, their active engagement in the develop-
ment and implementation of initiatives, and collaborations with external
organizations and communities (Parent & Fortier, 2018). It is therefore not
unexpected that the enthusiasm, motivation, and commitment of the CEO
were instrumental in the realization of the project, and steering group com-
prising victim organizations, public health, local council, and other profes-
sionals in the area was actively engaged throughout the project. The
6 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
intervention and the study was designed as a response to both need and
opportunity for a bystander VAWG prevention program specifically targeting
professional players, coaches and staff outreaching into the wider community
through football.
Football Onside
Football Onside is a feminist, gender-transformative, and social-justice-
informed bystander leadership intervention. The program is theoretically and
pedagogically underpinned by previous research, documented elsewhere
(Fenton & Mott, 2017; 2018; Fenton et al., forthcoming). The theoretical
framework is Latané and Darley’s (1970) situational model, which explains
the bystander decision-making process from noticing an event and identifying
it as problematic, to taking responsibility, feeling confident, and possessing
the necessary skills to act, through to subsequent intervention. Prochaska and
DiClemente’s (1986) model of behavior change was utilized (Fenton & Mott,
2018), and Nation et al.’s (2003) principles for effective prevention programs,
for both content and delivery including varied teaching methods, dosage,
being theory-driven and socioculturally relevant to participants, and delivered
by well-trained staff, were followed. In order to ensure that the content was of
maximal salience to participants (Nation et al., 2003), a focus group with the
Community Trust staff was held to inform content development. Content
included specific requests for information on law, including materials on
grooming and child sex offences, which was implemented both in the content
and in an additional take-home booklet. Further perusal of the baseline data
informed program development, for example, concentrating on the rape myths
participants most believed in and providing feedback on participants own
norm misperceptions. Content was designed to explore performative mascu-
linities and sport, prevalence, impact and myths surrounding SV and DV, con-
sent, and bystander skills-building (Table S1, Supplemental Appendix).
Trainers were recruited from, or recommended by, local victims’ organiza-
tions. Facilitator training was conducted face to face with the two academics
who designed the program, and all materials including detailed facilitator
notes were provided in advance. The training consisted of going through the
slides and notes over the course of a half day. It is worth noting that there was
some resistance to the idea that trainers for victims’ organizations could need
any further training.
This study sought to explore the effects of Football Onside in a sports set-
ting outside a student population for the first time in the United Kingdom. To
address some of the limitations in the evaluation literature, we adopted a
nonrandomized design with intervention and control group, with measures at
7
Table 1. Mixed-Effects Model Results.
Measure
Intervention group
Trust 1
Control group
Trust 2
Between-group
differencea
Within-group
differencea
Effect
sizec
M [95% CI] M [95% CI]
Time × Group
I-C [95% CI]
T1-T0, T2-T0
[95% CI]bd(g)
IRMA
Baseline 1.87 [1.72, 2.05] 1.83 [1.6, 2.05]
1 month 1.57 [1.41, 1.72] 1.65 [1.42, 1.88] −0.12 [−0.37, 0.12] −0.3 [−0.44, −0.17]**
9 months 1.49 [1.32, 1.66] 1.75 [1.52, 1.98] −0.3 [−0.57, −0.04]* −0.38 [−0.54, −0.22]** −0.54(−0.53)
DVMAS
Baseline 2.74 [2.51, 2.97] 2.57 [2.24, 2.9]
1 month 2.39 [2.16, 2.61] 2.71 [2.38, 3.06] −0.5 [−0.85, −0.15]* −0.35 [−0.55, −0.16]** −0.5(−0.5)
9 months 2.48 [2.23, 2.74] 2.47 [2.13, 2.82] −0.16 [−0.53, 0.21] −0.26 [−0.48, −0.03]*
Readiness for change
Baseline 3.56 [3.38, 3,75] 3.49 [3.23, 3.76]
1 month 3.61 [3.42, 3.8] 3.29 [3.01, 3.56] 0.26 [−0.13, 0.64] 0.05 [−0.17, 0.26]
9 months 3.57 [3.35, 3.79] 3.21 [2.92, 3.5] 0.29 [−0.12, 0.71] 0.01 [−0.24, 0.25]
Bystander intent
Baseline 3.7 [3.53, 3.87] 3.58 [3.33, 3.83]
1 month 3.9 [3.73, 4.07] 3.4 [3.15, 3.65] 0.37 [0.09, 0.65]* 0.2 [0.04, 0.35]* 1(0.99)
9 months 3.91 [3.72, 4.1] 3.47 [3.21, 3.73] 0.31 [0.01, 0.61]* 0.21 [0.03, 0.38]* 0.94(0.93)
Bystander efficacy
Baseline 80.8 [75.67, 85.93] 81.75 [74.22, 89.28]
1 month 87.07 [81.94, 92.2] 73.73 [66.2, 81.25] 14.29 [6.37, 22.22]*** 6.27 [1.85, 10.69]* 0.9 (0.89)
9 months 87.36 [81.7, 93.01] 73.93 [66.27, 81.59] 14.38 [5.98, 22.78]*** 6.56 [1.55, 11.56]* 0.98 (0.97)
Bystander behavior
Baseline −2.52 [−4.3, −0.62] −3.25 [−5.96, −0.54]
1 month −0.21 [−2.06, 1.65] −3.67 [−6.47, −0.88] 2.69 [−1.86, 7.23] 2.26 [−0.27, 4.8]
9 months 0.69 [−1.56, 2.94] −2.76 [−05.64, 0.13] 2.7 [−02.12, 7.46] 3.16 [0.31, 6.02]*
(continued)
8
Measure
Intervention group
Trust 1
Control group
Trust 2
Between-group
differencea
Within-group
differencea
Effect
sizec
M [95% CI] M [95% CI]
Time × Group
I-C [95% CI]
T1-T0, T2-T0
[95% CI]bd(g)
Perceptions of peer helping
Baseline 3.71 [3.52, 3.91] 3.84 [3.55, 4.12]
1 month 4.01 [3.82, 4.21] 3.74 [3.42, 4.05] 0.4 [−0.04, 0.84] 0.3 [0.06, 0.54]*
9 months 3.99 [3.75, 4.23] 3.87 [3.57, 4.18] 0.24 [−0.22, 0.7] 0.28 [−0.001, 0.56]
Perceptions of peer myths
Baseline 29.76 [24.79, 34.73] 32.5 [25.08, 39.94]
1 month 22.05 [17.08, 27.02] 27.89 [20.22, 35.56] −3.09 [−14.56, 8.38] −7.71 [−13.93, −1.49]*
9 months 28.98 [22.9, 35.06] 30.52 [22.93, 35.03] 1.22 [−10.74, 13.17] −0.78 [−7.95, 6.39]
The law
Knowledge of law DV
Baseline 2.68 [2.4, 2.95] 2.25 [1.85, 2.65]
1 month 3.43 [3.15, 3.7] 2.62 [2.22, 3.03] 0.37 [−0.17, 0.92] 0.75 [0.44, 1.06]***
9 months 3.16 [2.84, 3.48] 2.45 [2.04, 2.87] 0.28 [−0.3, 0.86] 0.48 [0.14, 0.83]*
Knowledge of law SV
Baseline 2.79 [2.5, 3.09] 2.44 [2.002, 2.87]
1 month 3.59 [3.29, 3.89] 2.85 [2.4, 3.3] 0.38 [−0.23, 1] 0.79 [0.45, 1.14]***
9 months 3.39 [3.04, 3.74] 2.79 [2.33, 3.25] 0.24 [−0.41, 0.89] 0.6 [0.21, 0.99]*
Note. CI = confidence interval; IRMA = Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Short Form; DVMAS = Domestic Violence Myth Acceptance.
aEstimates based on linear mixed models.
bT0 = baseline, T1 = post-test, T2 = follow-up.
cStandardized calculation based on model-adjusted means in both groups.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 1. (continued)
Kovalenko and Fenton 9
baseline, post-test, and 9-month follow-up. Our primary research aims were
to evaluate the feasibility of the Football Onside program and to examine the
effect of the program between the intervention and control group. We aimed
to explore and report the effects within the intervention group in order to map
onto extant evaluations, which did not have a comparison. Our secondary
research aim was to examine backlash arising from the intervention.
Method
Participants
This study was conducted with two professional Football Club Community
Trusts (FCCTs) in South West England from June 2018 to February 2020.
Trust 1 received the intervention and Trust 2 acted as control. Of 60 partici-
pants initially recruited, nine dropped out after completing the pre-interven-
tion questionnaires due to reasons unrelated to the nature of the study, and
one participant, affected by the topic, disclosed during program delivery and
was assisted to access professional support. These participants (n = 4) in the
intervention group and (n = 6) in the control group were excluded from the
data analysis. The final sample (n = 50) consisted of FCCT coaches and man-
agers, football academy students, members of a national personal and social
development program, and the regional Football Association.
Procedure
Members of both Trusts were recruited through emails sent by their senior
management. Initially, 12 participants from Trust 1 completed the baseline
survey prior to participating in a focus group with the program developers.
Measures were taken at baseline, post-test at 1-month post-intervention, and
follow-up at 9-months post-intervention. Participants provided written
informed consent. Football Onside was implemented in Trust 1 across two
groups, each of which received three 2-hour sessions, one week apart in
February to March 2019, which were delivered by two trained male and
female facilitators together. Fidelity of program delivery was observed. The
post-test questionnaire at 1-month contained course evaluation feedback
questions. Participants received a £15 voucher at post-test, and an additional
£10 voucher at follow-up. Anonymity of participants was maintained using
generated ID codes enabling baseline and post-questionnaires to be linked.
Trust 2 were offered free delivery of the Football Onside program after final
data collection. Ethical approval was granted by the University of Exeter
College of Social Sciences and International Studies Ethics Committee.
10 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
Measures
Self-Reported Learning Outcomes and Fidelity. Intervention group participants
rated the extent to which the program met its learning objectives (improved
knowledge, attitudes, likelihood to intervene and confidence) on a Likert-
type scale from 1 (“Definitely no”) to 5 (“Definitely yes”). Mean scores for
each question were calculated. Fidelity was observed in terms of adherence
to the curriculum, quality of delivery, and program attendance. The same
observer conducted all observations, completing six fidelity observation logs.
The Questionnaire. The survey included validated scales measuring attitudes,
intentions, and bystander behaviors around sexual and domestic abuse,
designed to map onto the extant literature, as well as questions to gather
demographic information. Where necessary language was modified to be rel-
evant to a UK adult audience: “girl” was replaced with “woman,”
“campus”/“university” with “my organization” and “groups I work with,”
and “community resource” with “professional agency.” Phrases “sexual
abuse and intimate partner violence abuse” were replaced with “sexual vio-
lence and domestic abuse,” and “911” with “999.”
Demographics. Participants were asked their gender, sexual orientation,
age, ethnicity, relationship status, if they knew someone affected by sexual or
domestic abuse, and prior participation in a prevention program.
Rape Myth Acceptance. The Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Short Form
(IRMA) scale was used (McMahon & Farmer, 2011). The participants were
asked to rate their beliefs about 19 statements such as “Rape happens when
a man’s sex drive gets out of control” on a five-item Likert-type scale with
higher scores reflecting greater adherence to rape myths. The mean was cal-
culated, and the scale had a good internal consistency (α = .85).
Domestic Violence Myth Acceptance. The Domestic Violence Myth Accep-
tance scale (DVMAS) was used (Peters, 2008). Participants rated their beliefs
in 16 domestic abuse myths, for example, “A lot of domestic violence occurs
because women keep on arguing about things with their partners,” on a seven-
item Likert-type scale where higher mean score indicated greater acceptance
of domestic abuse myths. Internal consistency of the scale was α = .7.
Readiness for Change. A subset of items from the Readiness for Change
scale (Responsibility and Denial subscales) was used (Banyard et al., 2010,
2014). Where questions asked about one type of violence only, it was adapted
Kovalenko and Fenton 11
to state “domestic abuse or sexual harassment/violence” due to the nature
of the study. Item “I think I can do something about sexual violence” was
adapted to “I think I can do something about domestic abuse and/or sexual
harassment/violence and so I am planning to find out more about what I can
do.” The participants answered nine items on a seven-point Likert-type scale,
with several items being reverse coded. After reverse coding, the items were
averaged so that higher number represented higher readiness for change.
Internal consistency was acceptable (α = .6).
Bystander Intent. The Intent to Help Friends scale was used (Banyard
et al., 2014), along with items from the Bystander Attitude Scale–Revised
(BAS-R) (McMahon et al., 2014). Participants rated their likelihood to help
in 16 situations, such as “Ring a professional agency to get advice on how
to safely challenge a friend, relative, or colleague who is a perpetrator,” on a
five-item Likert-type scale where higher mean score indicated higher intent
to help. The scale had a high internal consistency (α = .85). One additional
item was added to explore participants’ intent to “Look up laws on domestic
abuse or sexual harassment/violence,” due to program content and the scale
maintained internal consistency at α = .85 level.
Bystander Efficacy. The Bystander Efficacy Scale (Banyard et al., 2007)
was used to assess confidence to intervene. The scale (n = 17) had high inter-
nal consistency, α = .89. Participants were asked to rate their level of confi-
dence to perform certain behaviors, for example, “Confidence to speak up to
someone who is making excuses for using physical force in a relationship,”
on a scale from 0 to 100. A mean score for each participant was calculated,
where a higher number represented greater bystander confidence.
Reported Behavior. To assess actual behavior change the Bystander Behav-
ior Scale (BBS-R) was used (Banyard et al., 2007; McMahon et al., 2011).
The participants reported any bystander behavior performed on a 3-item
scale “Yes” (coded as “1”), “Wasn’t in the situation” (“0”), and “No” (“−1”).
The scores were summed, with higher scores indicating higher engagement,
and the scale (n = 16) had high internal consistency (α = .87). Item “Signaled
disapproval at sexist comments or jokes by using body language” was added
due to program content and “Verbally challenged sexist comments and jokes”
was paraphrased from “Challenge a friend who made a sexist joke.” One item
was added to assess the law context: “Looked up the law on domestic abuse
or sexual harassment/violence.” The scale maintained a high internal consis-
tency α = .87 with the added items. Following McMahon et al. (2017), we
assessed the frequency of opportunity (i.e. how many times participants had
12 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
the opportunity to intervene) and the frequency of bystander intervention (i.e.
how many times participants intervened) separately, descriptively analyzing
replies “yes” and “no.”
Perceptions of Peer Helping. A subset of items from Perceptions of Peer
Helping scale (Banyard et al., 2014) and BAS-R (McMahon et al., 2014)
was used. We replaced “friends” with “friends, relatives and colleagues of
the same gender,” consistent with Gainsbury et al. (2020). Participants rated
the likelihood of their peers to perform five certain helping behaviors on a
5-point Likert-type scale. For example, “Approach someone they knew if
they thought s/he was in an abusive relationship to let them know they were
there to help.” Means for each item were calculated with higher number indi-
cating a greater belief that peers would help. Internal consistency of the scale
was moderate (α = .68).
Perceptions of Peer Myth Acceptance. A subset of items from DVMAS and
IRMA was used, adding a question on program content ("Sexist banter is
okay if it’s only a joke”). Participants indicated the proportion (0–100%) of
their friends, family, and colleagues of the same gender they thought would
agree with each of the seven statements. Internal consistency was α = .6.
Baseline scores on Perceived Peer Helping and Peer Myth Acceptance were
subsequently used as a pedagogical tool during the intervention to show par-
ticipants’ actual and perceived norms.
Perceptions of Law Knowledge. In accordance with program content,
two bespoke items were created to measure perception of law knowledge
related to rape and to domestic abuse on a five-item Likert-type scale, for
example, “How would you rank your knowledge about the law relating to
sexual violence?” Higher scores indicated greater perceived law knowl-
edge.
Backlash. We followed Moynihan et al. (2011a), calculating the change in
attitude scores over time by at least one standard deviation in the undesired
direction. A categorical variable was computed for each participant to see if
their score changed or stayed the same.
Analysis Plan
Data were analyzed using Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College
Station, TX: StataCorp LLC. The dataset was checked for normality of distri-
bution of residuals, and for heteroscedasticity. Sensitivity analysis explored
Kovalenko and Fenton 13
missing items and outliers. We performed a square root transformation for
one skewed variable, Bystander Behavior; however, since it did not alter the
results, we present untransformed data. Missing data not exceeding 10% of
total questions on the scale or subscale were handled using person mean sub-
stitution (Shrive et al., 2006); otherwise, the observation was coded as miss-
ing for that subscale.
Participants in both groups were compared using descriptive statistics and
bivariate tests. We also compared completers with those lost to the 9-month
follow-up. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using Chi-square tests,
while continuous variables were compared using t-tests. Mixed-effects mod-
els were conducted to observe changes over time from baseline to post and
baseline to follow-up, both between the intervention and control group and
within the intervention group. Mixed-effects models are preferable to
repeated measures ANOVAs because the approach is more flexible, allows
for the analysis of nested cases and predictors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013),
and handles missing data by estimating parameters based on available indi-
vidual information (Gueorguieva & Krystal, 2004). Due to small sample size
and to reduce the chance of Type 1 error, we adopted a conservative approach
with restricted maximum likelihood and Kenward–Roger approximation
(Kenward & Roger, 1997; Luke, 2017). Mixed-effects models included time,
group, and the interaction between these variables as fixed effects, and ran-
dom participant effects to account for between-participant variability. The
interaction Time × Group reflected the effects of the intervention. We applied
appropriate contrasts to observe within-group changes in the intervention
group. Standardized effect size based on model-adjusted mean comparison
was calculated (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001) using Cohen’s d and then Hedges’ g
to avoid bias due to small sample (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). By way of general
guidance, g < .2 indicates small effect, g = .5 indicates medium effect, and
g > .8 indicates large effect (Cohen, 1988). Backlash was calculated using
Chi-square tests.
Results
Participants
Of the 60 initially recruited, 50 (83%) participants completed baseline and
post-intervention surveys, and of those, 37 (74%) participants completed
follow-up at 9 months. Attrition rates at follow-up were 32.35% (n = 11) in
the intervention group, and 12.5% (n = 2) in the control group, χ2(3) = 50,
p < .001. The majority of participants self-identified as White British (96%),
male (84%), and heterosexual (90%), with age ranging between 18 and
14 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
58 years (M = 31.44, SD = 10.945) (Table S2, Supplemental Appendix).
Twenty-one participants (42%) reported knowing someone who had been
affected by domestic abuse. Five participants (10%) had participated in a DV
or SV program before.
There were no substantial differences between the intervention and con-
trol groups in terms of demographic variables and baseline scores. There
were no significant differences in baseline scores and demographic variables
between those who completed the questionnaires at all time points and those
who were lost to follow-up. Similarly, participation in the focus group was
not associated with any significant differences.
Primary Research Aims
Perceived Learning Outcomes and Fidelity. Participants consistently reported
that the program met its learning objectives with mean scores surpassing 4 on
every item (M = 4.32, 95%CI [4.11, 4.52]) (Table S3 Supplemental Appen-
dix). Mean observer scores across the six sessions ranged from 3.5 to 5.0
(M = 4.67; SD = 0.61), with one occasion falling below the 4.0 criterion. It
became apparent from observation and participant complaint at the first ses-
sion with the first group that one facilitator was unable to communicate the
materials confidently and knowledgeably in accordance with the program
learning objectives. Participant interaction with the facilitators in that session
was lower. The trained facilitators were immediately replaced by the female–
male program developers (second author) and the subsequent two sessions
for group one, and the whole program for group two, was unaffected. Fidel-
ity, engagement and attendance were observed to be subsequently high.
Effects of the Intervention
Between-Group. Table 1 shows model-estimated mean differences and
means for between- and within-group changes. We found significant inter-
vention effects at post-test for Domestic Abuse Myth Acceptance, F(5,
98.22) = 3.26, p = .009, and at follow-up for Rape Myth Acceptance, F(4,
98.22) = 6.53, p < .001, with greater improvements in the intervention
group, and medium effect sizes on both measures. Significant intervention
effects were also found in Bystander Intent, F(5, 98.29 = 3.37, p = .008, and
Bystander Efficacy, F(5, 95.52) = 4.34, p = .001, at both time points, with
greater improvements in the intervention group, and large effect sizes on
these measures. No significant effects were found for other measures.
In terms of frequency of bystander opportunity, descriptive analysis
showed that intervention group participants with opportunity to intervene
reported engaging in more bystander behaviors at post-test and follow-up
Kovalenko and Fenton 15
compared with the control group participants who engaged in fewer behav-
iors over time (Table S4, Supplemental Appendix).
Within-Group. Analysis of the intervention effects within the interven-
tion group revealed significant improvements with medium to large effect
sizes on IRMA scores at post-test, d(g) = −0.68(−0.67) and at follow-up,
d(g) =−0.88(−0.88), and DVMAS scores at post-test, d(g) = −0.53(−0.53),
and at follow-up, d(g) = −0.4(−0.4). Participants significantly improved
on their Bystander Intent at post-test, d(g) = 0.39(0.39) and at follow-up,
d(g) = 0.43(0.43), and Bystander Efficacy at both time points, d(g) = 0.42(0.41)
and d(g) = 0.45(0.45), respectively. Law knowledge related to DV and SV was
also significantly greater with large effect sizes at post-test, d(g) = 0.93(0.92)
and d(g) = 0.91(0.9) respectively, and at follow-up, d(g) = 0.62(0.61) for DV,
and d(g) = 0.69(0.69) for SV. After one month, participants significantly
improved on their Perceptions of Peer Helping, d(g) = 0.52(0.51), and Peer
Myth Acceptance, d(g) = −0.53(−0.52), but not at follow-up. No significant
changes were observed for other measures.
Secondary Outcomes
Backlash. We identified backlash in 9.38% of the intervention group for
bystander efficacy post-test (n = 3) and 4.35% at follow-up (n = 1). These
changes in the undesired direction are outweighed by the proportion of par-
ticipants whose scores improved by at least 1 SD post-test (75%) and at fol-
low-up (86.96%). We also observed backlash in 4.55% of the intervention
group in perceptions of peer helping at follow-up (n = 1), outweighed by a
proportion of participants (4.55%) whose scores improved by at least one
SD on this measure, while there were no differences in the control group
(χ2 = 1.25, p = .53).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which the exposure to
the Football Onside program had effects on participants’ knowledge, atti-
tudes, and confidence about sexual and domestic violence, as well as their
bystander behaviors. We also examined if the program learning objectives
were met, and observed fidelity to the program. To our knowledge, this was
the first UK-based study exploring the effects of a bystander intervention for
the prevention of sexual and domestic violence in a professional sports set-
ting. The results suggest mixed but promising changes and provide prelimi-
nary support for both the efficacy of the Football Onside program in UK
population settings and the premise that professional sports may be an
16 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
appropriate and positive platform for VAWG prevention. The results also
provide further evidence for the translatability of bystander interventions
from the U.S. context (Fenton & Mott, 2017). These findings should be
investigated in larger cluster randomized controlled trials.
The consistently high ratings for self-reported learning outcomes and the
observed high engagement with the program suggests that content and mode
of delivery were appropriate for the target audience. Further, as our partici-
pants were almost exclusively men, a traditionally hard to engage, but criti-
cal, group (Casey et al., 2018; Flood, 2011) is important for educators
exploring bystander programs in real-world professional settings and adds to
the evidence that some men will positively receive prevention training (Rich
et al., 2010). This finding attests to both the potential of professional sports
settings as critical spaces for prevention (Katz, 2018) and the importance of
the bystander approach in positioning men as “social justice allies” (Fabiano
et al., 2003). The need to replace facilitators highlights the importance of
careful selection and thorough training of even professional facilitators,
which will be essential for the delivery, engagement, and sustainability of
future programs (Anderson & Whiston, 2005; Fenton & Mott, 2017; Nation
et al., 2003).
There were several challenges to program and study implementation. Staff
availability during the busy sports season was limited, presenting difficulty in
releasing staff to take part in the evaluation and subsequent allocation of suffi-
cient time for research activities. Researchers should be mindful of high staff
turnover rates at Community Trusts (Bostock et al., 2021)—a factor beyond
our control that was the main reason for study attrition. Securing buy-in to
participation in the program in Trust 1, however, was not a challenge itself
because it was presented by the CEO as part of staff responsibilities. This active
involvement and positive role-modeling by the CEO, and stakeholders, further
facilitated participation in the program and study. This aligns with similar find-
ings by Fields et al. (2022), where support from athletic directors and athletes
enhanced the sense of community and increased participation in CBIM.
A further facilitator to participant engagement was the cohort of people at
which Football Onside’ was aimed. Those working at the Community Trust
were generally very community-minded because this is at the core of their
activities. Delivering the program to a cohesive peer group with similar job
responsibilities and perceived prosocial attitudes underscored the importance
of giving space for participants and “the opportunity to gather with like-
minded men” to engage with VAWG (McMahon & Dick, 2011).
While the overall effects of the intervention were mixed, significant
changes were observed for the measures that in particular correlate with the
fundamental theoretical design of the Football Onside program (long-term
Kovalenko and Fenton 17
improvement for rape myth acceptance, bystander intent and confidence, and
short-term improvement for domestic violence myth acceptance), with the
exception of the actual helping behavior stage. These measures map well
onto the processes of Latané and Darley’s (1970) situational model as applied
to VAWG, and previous studies (Jouriles et al., 2018; Moynihan et al., 2011a).
The maintained long-term improvement in rape myth acceptance speaks
to the importance of meeting participants where they are at (Fenton & Jones,
2017): indeed, baseline RMA data were used to inform program development
(Fenton et al., forthcoming). We do not know exactly why the significant
improvements in DVMA were not maintained after 9 months but suspect it
may be due to the fact that the program focused more explicitly on rape
myths, in part because so much more is known from rape myth research. To
our knowledge, domestic abuse myths have not yet been measured in evalu-
ations of bystander programs with athletes; hence, further research should
investigate change processes for this outcome.
Evidence that Football Onside may increase Bystander Intent and Efficacy
is especially promising since these measures are important correlates of pro-
social bystander behavior (Banyard, 2008). Moynihan et al. (2011a) observed
similar improvements in a student athlete sample, but only in a 2-month fol-
low-up evaluation. Our follow-up period of 9 months, however, is compara-
tively longer than the vast majority of evaluations (Kovalenko et al., 2022;
Mujal et al., 2021), indicating potential for long-lasting change.
The final step in Latané and Darley’s (1970) theoretical model is progres-
sion to actual bystander behavior. There were no significant differences in
behavior between groups, although trends were in the desired direction.
Descriptive analysis showed an increase from baseline to follow-up in
bystander actions (when in the situation) in the intervention group, when par-
ticipants have had more substantial time and opportunity to enact interven-
tions. Many other studies have reported nonsignificant effects for bystander
behavior (e.g., Jouriles et al., 2018; Moynihan et al., 2011a), including a
male-targeted bystander program (Gidycz et al., 2011) and a student athlete
sample (Moynihan et al., 2018). The trends within our results suggest that our
study may simply have not been sufficiently powered to show significant dif-
ferences. Behavior is notoriously difficult to change and there are challenges
in evaluating bystander behavior. Firstly, at no time point did more than half
of either group report being in the described situation, thus limiting the pos-
sibility to observe the intervention effects and possibly indicating an under-
capture of bystander behaviors. Secondly, despite several attempts to measure
opportunity (Cares et al., 2015; McMahon, 2015), this construct is still not
fully captured with the existing measures and calculations. Descriptive analy-
sis of the “yes,” “no,” and “wasn’t in the situation” options allows the
18 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
assessment of frequency of opportunity and behaviors. However, summing
the scores for inferential statistical analysis does not allow for meaningful
conclusions about individual behavioral changes to be drawn, especially as
some events are rare. Yet if analyzed separately, multiple comparisons of
individual behaviors would introduce an increased chance of Type I error.
Given the complexity of real-life opportunities to intervene and the diverse
range of prosocial behaviors that might be performed, it is unlikely that quan-
titative methodology can ever prescriptively capture them. Inductive the-
matic analysis of additional open-ended survey questions (Braun & Clarke,
2006) or interviewing could be a possible solution. Nonetheless, real-life
impact at a societal level can be cumulatively achieved by small individual
effects (Jouriles et al., 2018).
That participants’ Readiness did not significantly improve might be
explained by the fact that their prior safeguarding training and job roles meant
that they were already ready for change. However, given that our participants
also had desirable baseline RMA scores, which did improve significantly
after 9 months, desirability at baseline does not necessarily equate with no
room for improvement. Further, as other studies have found an association
between RMA and denial and taking responsibility (Banyard et al., 2014;
Fenton & Mott, 2017), we suggest that further examination is required. We
speculate that items on the Readiness scale, such as “I think I should learn
more,” might not fit the construct at post-intervention when participants have
indeed just learned more; they may logically think that they should not learn
more because the depth of the intervention means they have learned enough.
Further, the presentation to participants of their own misperceptions of norms
as a pedagogic device in the intervention might actually serve to increase
denial. This is because participants now understand that others are more pro-
social and hold fewer problematic views than they originally thought, and
thus logically that it is less “of a problem in their organization.” We suggest
that the items and construct underpinning Readiness should be explored in
more detail in further research.
The lack of significant difference between groups on Perceptions of Peer
Helping and Perceptions of Peer Myth Acceptance is inconsistent with previ-
ous research, which has shown that correcting negative perceptions of peer
norms is associated with personal willingness to intervene (Brown &
Messman-Moore, 2010; Fabiano et al., 2003). Our finding may well attest to
the difficulties in measuring the concept of peers generally. For example,
individuals have multiple social identities and identify with multiple social
groups, within which different norms may operate (Turner & Reynolds,
2010). The level of social identification with each group may influence their
understanding and perception of “peers,” and peer norms. We used “friends,
Kovalenko and Fenton 19
family and colleagues,” which was unvalidated, and acknowledge that this is
a wide and possibly confusing comparator group requiring further develop-
ment and refinement as a measure. However, the other purpose of this mea-
sure was to be able to present participants with their own misperceptions of
norms as part of the intervention in accordance with social norms theory
(Orchowski & Berkowitz, 2022). We note from the observation (and years of
facilitator experience) that as a pedagogical device, this strategy results in
high interest and engagement among participants. Equally, it may be simply
that our sample was underpowered.
We found no significant differences in perceived law knowledge between
groups. To our knowledge, no studies have extensively measured law-related
knowledge, although it is often part of program curricula (Fenton et al.,
2016). Thus, its effect on change processes is unknown. A validated law scale
would be a valuable addition to the literature expanding understandings as to
how bystander programs work.
Additional changes that were observed only on the within-group level
included significant increases in Perceived Law Knowledge related to DV
and SV in the intervention group at both time points, and bystander behavior
at follow-up. Very few participants evidenced a backlash effect. Worsened
scores on the measures of bystander efficacy and perceptions of peer helping
were outweighed by a higher proportion of scores improved as a result of
participation in Football Onside.
Limitations
Our study has several limitations that should be addressed in future
research. Our sample could inhibit generalizability of findings to a broader
population for several reasons. First, it was a UK-specific study, and find-
ings may not apply to international contexts where the structure and func-
tions of sports and charity organizations are different from the UK FCCT’s.
Second, the sample size was small and was also underpowered to reliably
detect meaningful differences between groups, and we additionally lost a
large number of participants to follow-up due to unanticipated staff turn-
over. This also means we were unable to look at the interactions of gender
and age on the outcomes of interest to produce meaningful results.
However, a large cluster randomized trial could address this limitation, as
well as treatment assignment bias. If participants are randomly assigned
and are blind to condition, this would reduce the chance of social desir-
ability and researcher bias. Third, multiple comparisons in a small sample
introduce a higher chance of Type I error. We adopted a conservative
approach with Kenward–Roger approximation to minimize this issue;
20 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
however, the results should be interpreted with caution. Fourth, our study
sample was relatively homogenous with respect to racial/ethnic identity
and sexual orientation. However, previous research has shown that White
heterosexual men are the bearers of hegemonic masculinity (Carrigan et
al., 1985; Donaldson, 1993; Jewkes et al., 2015); hence, we argue that in
the current study, it is a strength rather than a limitation. Fifth, reliance on
retrospective self-reports can result in underestimates or overestimates in
these measures and has been noted by other researchers (Sharot et al.,
2007). Participants might not recall certain situations, or the memory could
be distorted by emotions. They might also misunderstand and consequently
underestimate their bystander involvement. Sixth, we calculated standard-
ized effect sizes based on model-adjusted means between two groups. To
date, there have been no guidelines on the calculation of effect sizes from
mixed-effects models. More research is needed to advance reporting.
Other limitations were introduced by providing a long questionnaire with
modified scales. One of the reasons for dropouts at follow-up could be
related to the length of the questionnaire. Although our study found accept-
able internal consistency for each scale in our sample, the use of replicated
items and modified language should be investigated further. Despite the
limitations, however, we find it encouraging that the participants reported
having a chance to intervene and giving examples of doing so since the
beginning of the program.
Conclusions
The current feasibility study evaluated a bystander violence prevention pro-
gram at FCCTs in South West England. The Football Onside program appears
to have a promising impact on Community Trust members’ attitudes and con-
fidence to intervene. These findings are among the first to promote bystander
intervention in professional football club settings. The two Community
Trusts represented an ideal population for the study due to the outreach and
impact on young people and communities. Trust coaches as leaders could be
positive role models promoting new prosocial norms among their players.
Further, this study expands the research base for bystander programs by
recruiting a predominantly adult male sample with a mean age of 31. Further
research should explore intervention effects through a cluster randomized
controlled trial in professional athlete teams.
Acknowledgments
We owe a great deal of gratitude to Dr. Nathan Eisenstadt, Dr. Siobhan O’Dwyer, Dr.
Fiona Warren, and Prof. Charles Abraham for their support throughout this research.
Kovalenko and Fenton 21
We would like to extend our sincere thanks to all the FCCT members involved in this
study. Without these individuals, this project would not have been possible.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared a potential conflict of interest (e.g., a financial relationship with
the commercial organizations or products discussed in this article) as follows: At the
time of the research, Dr. Rachel Fenton was the supervisor of the project. She is now the
director of a spin-out company set up to provide training on bystander intervention.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/
or authorship of this article: Dr. Anastasiia G. Kovalenko was supported by the
University of Exeter International Excellence Scholarship for Postgraduate Research.
This research was also supported by the ESRC Impact Accelerator Account awarded
to Dr. Rachel Fenton.
ORCID iD
Anastasiia G. Kovalenko https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4299-3587
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Note
1. Community Trusts are not for profit organizations that support health and well-
being within their local community through involvement in sports and health
projects. CT’s are usually recognized among other supporters and nonsupport-
ers in the United Kingdom due to their extensive outreach (Martin et al., 2016;
Pringle et al., 2021).
References
Adams, A. (2011). “Josh Wears Pink Cleats”: Inclusive masculinity on the soccer
field. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(5), 579–596.
Anderson, L. A., & Whiston, S. C. (2005). Sexual assault education programs: A meta-
analytic examination of their effectiveness. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
29(4), 374–388.
Banyard, V. L. (2008). Measurement and correlates of prosocial bystander behavior:
The case of interpersonal violence. Violence and Victims, 23(1), 83–97.
Banyard, V. L., Eckstein, R. P., & Moynihan, M. M. (2010). Sexual violence prevention:
The role of stages of change. Journal of Interpersonal violence, 25(1), 111–135.
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(1), 101–115.
22 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E. G. (2007). Sexual violence prevention
through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community
Psychology, 35(4), 463–481.
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(1), 61–79.
Boeringer, S. B. (1999). Associations of rape-supportive attitudes with fraternal and
athletic participation. Violence Against Women, 5(1), 81–90.
Bogen, K. W., Mulla, M. M. M., & Orchowski, L. M. (2020). Gender-equitable atti-
tudes, rape myth acceptance, and perceived peer acceptance of violence among
high school students: An examination of gender and athletic involvement.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(7-8), 1–17.
Bostock, J., Bull, M., Woodward, J. & Sibley, J. (2021). Mission vs. Market:
Theorizing the tensions within community sport trusts. The International Journal
of Sport and Society, 13(1), 1–22.
Bovill, H., & White, P. (2022). Ignorance is not bliss: A U.K. study of sexual and
domestic abuse awareness on campus, and correlations with confidence and posi-
tive action in a bystander program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(5–6),
2801–2825.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brackenridge, C. & Fasting K., Sexual harassment and abuse in sport: The research
context. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 2002. 8(2): 3–15
Brown, A. L., & Messman-Moore, T. L. (2010). Personal and perceived peer attitudes
supporting sexual aggression as predictors of male college students’ willingness
to intervene against sexual aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(3),
503–517.
Cares, A. C., Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., Williams, L. M., Potter, S. J., &
Stapleton, J. G. (2015). Changing attitudes about being a bystander to violence:
Translating an in-person sexual violence prevention program to a new campus.
Violence Against Women, 21(2), 165–187.
Carlson, J., Casey, E. A., Edleson, J. L., Tolman, R. M., Walsh, T. B., & Kimball, E.
(2015). Strategies to engage men and boys in violence prevention: A global orga-
nizational perspective. Violence Against Women, 21(11), 1406–1425.
Carlson, M. (2008). I’d rather go along and be considered a man: Masculinity and
bystander intervention. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 16(1), 3–17.
Carrigan, T., Connell, B., & Lee, J. (1985). Toward a new sociology of masculinity.
Theory and Society, 14(5), 551–604.
Casey, E. A., Carlson, J., Two Bulls, S., & Yager, A. (2018). Gender transformative
approaches to engaging men in gender-based violence prevention: A review and
conceptual model. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 19(2), 231–246.
Cheever, J., & Eisenberg, M. E. (2022). Team sports and sexual violence: Examining
perpetration by and victimization of adolescent males and females. Journal of
interpersonal violence, 37(1–2), NP400–NP422.
Kovalenko and Fenton 23
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2 ed.).
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Corboz, J., Flood, M., & Dyson, S. (2016). Challenges of bystander intervention
in male-dominated professional sport: Lessons from the Australian Football
League. Violence Against Women, 22(3), 324.
CPS. (2019). Violence Against Women and Girls Report. https://www.cps.gov.uk/
publication/violence-against-women-and-girls
Crosset, T. W., Ptacek, J., McDonald, M. A., & Benedict, J. R. (1996). Male student-
athletes and violence against women. Violence Against Women, 2(2), 163–179.
Donaldson, M. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory and Society, 22(5),
643–657.
Dyson, S., & Flood, M. (2008). Building cultures of respect and non-violence: A
review of literature concerning adult learning and violence prevention programs
with men. Australian Football League and VicHealth.
Exner-Cortens, D., & Cummings, N. (2017). Bystander-based sexual violence pre-
vention with college athletes: A pilot randomized trial. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 36(1–2), NP188–NP211.
Fabiano, P. M., Perkins, H. W., Berkowitz, A. D., Linkenbach, J., & Stark, C.
(2003). Engaging men as social justice allies in ending violence against women:
Evidence for a social norms approach. Journal of the American College Health
Association, 52(3), 105–112.
Fenton, R.A., Eisenstadt, N., and Kovalenko, A.G. (forthcoming). Developing a bystander
programme for the prevention of VAWG in a male-dominated sports environment.
Fenton, R. A., & Jones, C. (2017). An exploratory study on the beliefs about gender-
based violence held by incoming undergraduates in England. Journal of Gender-
Based Violence, 1(2), 147–167.
Fenton, R. A., & Mott, H. L. (2017). The bystander approach to violence preven-
tion: Considerations for implementation in Europe. Psychology of Violence, 7(3),
450–458.
Fenton, R.A. & Mott H.L. (2018). The Intervention Initiative: theoretical under-
pinnings, development and implementation, In S. Anitha and R. Lewis, (Eds.),
Gender Based Violence in University Communities: Policy, Prevention and
Educational Initiatives in Britain. Bristol University Press. p. 169–188.
Fenton, R. A., Mott, H. L., McCartan, K., & Rumney, P. N. (2016). A review of
evidence for bystander intervention to prevent sexual and domestic violence in
universities (Vol. 6, pp. 58–58). Public Health England.
Fields, A. D., Fenn, M., Ripper, L., Hill, A., Mulbah, P., Kass, N. M., & Miller,
E. (2022). A Coach-Delivered Dating Violence Prevention Program: Coach
Perspectives on Implementation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(13–14),
NP10594–NP10617.
Flood, M. (2011). Involving men in efforts to end violence against women. Men and
Masculinities, 14(3), 358–377.
Forsdike, K, O’Sullivan, G., & Hooker, L. (2022). Major sports events and domestic
violence: A systematic review. Health Soc Care Community, 30(6), e3670–e3685.
24 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
Fraser-Thomas, J., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2008). Examining adolescent sport dropout
and prolonged engagement from a developmental perspective. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 20(3), 318–333.
Gainsbury, A. N., Fenton, R. A., & Jones, C. A. (2020). From campus to communities:
Evaluation of the first UK-based bystander program for the prevention of domes-
tic violence and abuse in general communities. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1–11.
Garrity, S. E. (2011). Sexual assault prevention programs for college-aged men: A
critical evaluation. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 7(1), 40–48.
Gidycz, C. A., Orchowski, L. M., & Berkowitz, A. D. (2011). Preventing sexual
aggression among college men: An evaluation of a social norms and bystander
intervention program. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 720–742.
Gueorguieva, R., & Krystal, J. H. (2004). Move over ANOVA. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 61(3), 310.
Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Elsevier.
Home Office. (2019). Violence against Women and Girls and Male Position
Factsheets. https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2019/03/07/violence-against-
women-and-girls-and-male-position-factsheets/
Home Office. (2021). Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) strategy 2021 to
2024. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/violence-against-women-
and-girls-vawg-call-for-evidence/violence-against-women-and-girls-vawg-strat-
egy-2021-2024-call-for-evidence
Jaime, M. C. D., McCauley, H. L., Tancredi, D. J., Decker, M. R., Silverman, J. G.,
O’Connor, B., & Miller, E. (2018). Implementing a coach-delivered dating violence
prevention program with high school athletes. Prevention Science, 19(8), 1113–1122.
Jewkes, R., Morrell, R., Hearn, J., Lundqvist, E., Blackbeard, D., Lindegger, G.,
Quayle, M., Sikweyiya, Y., & Gottzén, L. (2015). Hegemonic masculinity:
Combining theory and practice in gender interventions. Culture, Health &
Sexuality, 17(Suppl 2), S112–S127.
Jouriles, E., Krauss, A., Vu, N. L., Banyard, V. L., & McDonald, R. (2018). Bystander
programs addressing sexual violence on college campuses: A systematic review
and meta-analysis of program outcomes and delivery methods. Journal of
American College Health, 1–10.
Katz, J. (1995). Reconstructing masculinity in the locker room: The mentors in vio-
lence prevention project. Harward Education Review, 65(2), 163–174.
Katz, J. (2018). Bystander training as leadership training: Notes on the origins, phi-
losophy, and pedagogy of the mentors in violence prevention model. Violence
Against Women, 24(15), 1755–1776.
Katz, J., Heisterkamp, H. A., & Fleming, W. M. (2011). The social justice roots of the
mentors in violence prevention model and its application in a high school setting.
Violence Against Women, 17(6), 684–702.
Kenward, M. G., & Roger, J. H. (1997). Small sample inference for fixed effects from
restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics, 53(3), 983.
Kettrey, H. H., & Marx, R. A. (2019). The effects of bystander programs on the pre-
vention of sexual assault across the college years: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(2), 212–227.
Kovalenko and Fenton 25
Kirby, S., Francis, B., & O’Flaherty, R. (2013). Can the FIFA world cup football
tournament be associated with an increase in domestic abuse? Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 51(3), 259–276.
Kovalenko, A. G., Abraham, C., Graham-Rowe, E., Levine, M., & O’Dwyer, S.
(2022). What works in violence prevention among young people?: A systematic
review of reviews. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(5): 1388–1404.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he
help? Appleton Century Crofts.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage Publications, Inc.
Luke, S. G. (2017). Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R.
Behavior Research Methods, 49(4), 1494–1502.
Martin, A., Morgan, S., Parnell, D., Philpott, M., Pringle, A., Rigby, M., Taylor, A.,
& Topham, J. (2016). A perspective from key stakeholders on football and health
improvement. Soccer & Society, 17(2), 175–182.
McCray, K. L. (2015). Intercollegiate athletes and sexual violence: A review of litera-
ture and recommendations for future study. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16(4),
438–443.
McGlynn, C. (2018). Challenging the law on sexual history evidence: A response to
Dent and Paul. Criminal law review, 3, 216–228.
McMahon, S. (2015). Participation in high school sports and bystander intentions,
efficacy to intervene, and rape myth beliefs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
30(17), 2980–2998.
McMahon, S., Allen, C. T., Postmus, J. L., McMahon, S. M., Andrew Peterson, N.,
& Hoffman, M. L. (2014). Measuring bystander attitudes and behavior to prevent
sexual violence. Journal of American College Health, 62(1), 58–66.
McMahon, S., & Dick, A. (2011). “Being in a Room with Like-Minded Men”: An
Exploratory Study of Men’s Participation in a Bystander Intervention Program
to Prevent Intimate Partner Violence. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 19(1), 3–18.
McMahon, S., & Farmer, G. L. (2009). The bystander approach: Strengths-based
sexual assault prevention with at-risk groups. Human Behavior in the Social
Environment, 19(8), 1042–1065.
McMahon, S., & Farmer, G. L. (2011). An updated measure for assessing subtle rape
myths. Social Work Research, 35(2), 71–81.
McMahon, S., Palmer, J. E., Banyard, V. L., Murphy, M., & Gidycz, C. A. (2017).
Measuring bystander behavior in the context of sexual violence prevention: Lessons
learned and new directions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(16), 2396–2418.
McMahon, S., Postmus, J. L., & Koenick, R. A. (2011). Conceptualizing the engaging
bystander approach to sexual violence prevention on college campuses. Journal
of College Student Development, 52(1), 115–130.
Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Decker, M. R., Virata, M. C. D.,
Anderson, H. A., Stetkevich, N., Brown, E. W., Moideen, F., & Silverman, J.
G. (2012). “Coaching boys into men”: A cluster-randomized controlled trial
of a dating violence prevention program. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(5),
431–438.
26 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L., Arnold, J. S., Eckstein, R. P., & Stapleton, J. G.
(2011a). Engaging intercollegiate athletes in preventing and intervening in sex-
ual and intimate partner violence. Journal of American College Health, 59(3),
197–204.
Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L., Arnold, J. S., Eckstein, R. P., & Stapleton, J. G.
(2011b). Sisterhood may be powerful for reducing sexual and intimate partner
violence: An evaluation of the Bringing in the Bystander in-person program with
sorority members. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 703–719.
Mujal, G. N., Taylor, M. E., Fry, J. L., Gochez-Kerr, T. H., & Weaver, N. L. (2021).
A Systematic Review of Bystander Interventions for the Prevention of Sexual
Violence. Trauma, violence & abuse, 22(2), 381–396.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-
Kane, E., & Davino, K. (2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective
prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58(6–7), 449–456.
NBC. (2014). Still Playing: 12 NFL Players Have Domestic Violence Arrests. https://
www.nbcnews.com/storyline/nfl-controversy/still-playing-12-nfl-players-have-
domestic-violence-arrests-n204831
O’Donohue, W. T., & Schewe, P. A. (2019). Handbook of sexual assault and sexual
assault prevention. Springer Cham.
O’Hear, M. (2001). Blue-collar crimes/white-collar criminals: Sentencing elite ath-
letes who commit violent crimes. Marquette Sports Law Review, 12(1), 427–447.
ONS. (2020). Domestic abuse during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic,
England and Wales: November 2020. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula-
tionandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabuseduringthecoronavir-
uscovid19pandemicenglandandwales/november2020
ONS. (2023a). Sexual offences victim characteristics, England and Wales: Year
ending March 2022. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/
crimeandjustice/articles/sexualoffencesvictimcharacteristicsenglandandwales/
yearendingmarch2022
ONS. (2023b). Domestic abuse victim characteristics, England and Wales: Year
ending March 2023. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/
crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabusevictimcharacteristicsenglandandwales/
yearendingmarch2023
Orchowski, L. M., & Berkowitz, A. D. (2022). Chapter 1 – A brief history of the sci-
ence and practice of engaging boys and men in sexual assault prevention. In L. M.
Orchowski & A. D. Berkowitz (Eds.), Engaging boys and men in sexual assault
prevention (pp. 1–27). Academic Press.
Parent, S., & Fortier, K. (2018). Comprehensive overview of the problem of violence
against athletes in sport. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 42(4), 227–246.
Peters, J. (2008). Measuring myths about domestic violence: Development and ini-
tial validation of the domestic violence myth acceptance scale. J of Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma, 16(1), 1–21.
Powell, A. (2011). Review of bystander approaches in support of preventing violience
against women. VicHealth.
Kovalenko and Fenton 27
Pringle, A. R., Zwolinsky, S., & Lozano-Sufrategui, L. (2021). Investigating the deliv-
ery of health improvement interventions through professional football club commu-
nity trusts-strengths and challenges. Public Health in Practice, 2, 100104–100104.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1986). Toward a comprehensive model of
change. Springer US.
Rich, M. D., Utley, E. A., Janke, K., & Moldoveanu, M. (2010). “I’d rather be doing
something else”: Male resistance to rape prevention programs. The Journal of
Men’s Studies, 18(3), 268–288.
Schwartz, M. D., & DeKeseredy, W. S. (2008). The Role of Men. Journal of
Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24(2), 178-185.
Sharot, T., Martorella, E. A., Delgado, M. R., & Phelps, E. A. (2007). How per-
sonal experience modulates the neural circuitry of memories of September 11.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(1), 389–394.
Shrive, F. M., Stuart, H., Quan, H., & Ghali, W. A. (2006). Dealing with missing data
in a multi-question depression scale: A comparison of imputation methods. BMC
Medical Research Methodology, 6(1), 57.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics: Pearson new
international edition (6th ed.). Pearson.
Trendl, A., Stewart, N., & Mullett, T. L. (2021). The role of alcohol in the link
between national football (soccer) tournaments and domestic abuse – Evidence
from England. Social Science & Medicine, 268: 113457.
Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2010). The story of social identity. In T. Postmes &
N. Branscombe (Eds.), Rediscovering Social Identity: Key Readings (pp. 13–32).
Psychology Press.
Williams, D. J., & Neville, F. G. (2017). Qualitative evaluation of the mentors in
violence prevention pilot in Scottish high schools. Psychology of Violence, 7(2),
213–223.
Williams, D. J., Neville, F. G., House, K., & Donnelly, P. D. (2013). Association
between Old Firm football matches and reported domestic (violence) incidents in
Strathclyde, Scotland. SAGE Open, 3(3), 1–7.
UN. (1993). Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women.
UN Women. (2021). The shadow pandemic: Violence against women during COVID-
19. Available from: https://data.unwomen.org/publications/vaw-rga
WHO. (2010). Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence against women.
Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241564007
Young, B. R., Desmarais, S. L., Baldwin, J. A., & Chandler, R. (2017). Sexual coer-
cion practices among undergraduate male recreational athletes, intercollegiate
athletes, and non-athletes. Violence Against Women, 23(7), 795–812.
Author Biographies
Anastasiia G. Kovalenko, PhD, is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of
Bristol (UK). This research was done as part of her PhD at the University of Exeter
Medical School (UK). Her research focuses on VAWG prevention and behavior
change interventions. She is particularly interested in the bystander approach and
28 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
seeks to advance behavior change strategies to prevent violence and promote positive
health outcomes.
Rachel A. Fenton, PhD, is an associate professor in law at the University of Exeter
Law School (UK). Her research focuses on the prevention of VAWG through public
health and bystander approaches, and gender and the law.
