View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Bystander Motivations and Barriers to Helping Intoxicated Peers

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Bystander Motivations and Barriers to Helping Intoxicated Peers
Language: English
Authors: Jamie M. Gajos (ORCID 0000-0001-7762-811X), Tricia H. Witte (ORCID 0000-0003-2102-5111), Bridget B. Weymouth, Meghan E. Burroughs, Jennifer L. Evans
Source: Journal of Drug Education. 2024 53(3-4):63-80.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2024
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (DHHS/PHS)
Contract Number: K01DA054262
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Intervention, Student Motivation, Barriers, Drinking, Peer Relationship, Age Differences, Gender Differences, Racial Differences, Instructional Program Divisions, Helping Relationship, Student Behavior, Undergraduate Students, Public Colleges, Drug Use
DOI: 10.1177/00472379241246368
ISSN: 0047-2379
1541-4159
Abstract: We examined the prevalence of self-reported motivations and barriers to helping intoxicated peers among emerging adults (N = 377; M[subscript age] = 18.64; 75% women, 88% White) attending a Southeastern university and whether motivations and barriers differed by age, gender, race, and class standing. Respondents aged 19-24 were more likely to endorse the motivation item "Because it was your "turn" to be the helper/designated driver (DD) that night" than eighteen-year-olds. Race differences were also reported for the motivation item, "Because the person was your friend", where White participants were more likely to endorse this item than non-White participants. Men also reported more Burden/Hassles-related barriers than did women.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1438490
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG0ahY56am7VwyD9yTYyNACAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKDeld3m1Vjm6E7ntQIBEICBmhO3bzxCMtrbkTFjcVtNdWN46jQsFFPenR0pS1KYHmRjoUATT6S_sFr0z-aJbAGgzGIRR7mEj8FArVJ5YVmb-cU-G0KxfK1FIt2FrgAfmzH9Rb9MR3wOG3PPVXCDkvN87P0A2IwAh-wCFwseyRkMyjQTd_xyxgW088-fIBhEy7oz308D5MtpRuqrgm0gnyfGBdeTU3GotDdUNS0=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0179435147;jdr01sep.24;2024Sep06.05:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0179435147-1">Bystander Motivations and Barriers to Helping Intoxicated Peers </title> <p>We examined the prevalence of self-reported motivations and barriers to helping intoxicated peers among emerging adults (N = 377; M <sub>age </sub>= 18.64; 75% women, 88% White) attending a Southeastern university and whether motivations and barriers differed by age, gender, race, and class standing. Respondents aged 19–24 were more likely to endorse the motivation item "Because it was your "turn" to be the helper/designated driver (DD) that night" than eighteen-year-olds. Race differences were also reported for the motivation item, "Because the person was your friend", where White participants were more likely to endorse this item than non-White participants. Men also reported more Burden/Hassles-related barriers than did women.</p> <p>Keywords: bystander interventions; intoxicated peers; motivations; barriers; emerging adults</p> <hd id="AN0179435147-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Excessive alcohol consumption among college students remains a significant public health issue. According to the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 47.1% of college students ages 18–22 consumed alcohol, 29.6% engaged in binge drinking, and 7% reported heavy alcohol use in the last 30 days ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref1">44</reflink>]). Approximately 337,000 collegiate young adults (ages 18 to 20) visited the emergency room for an alcohol-related emergency ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref2">36</reflink>]). Prevention efforts<bold></bold>that encourage helping behaviors (i.e., bystander interventions) when an alcohol-related emergency is present may help reduce alcohol-related consequences ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]). Indeed, research has shown that when students<bold></bold>encounter alcohol-related emergencies, they may not have the knowledge or skills to intervene and respond to the situation on behalf of their intoxicated peers<bold></bold>([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref5">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref6">41</reflink>]). The current study examined the prevalence of self-reported motivations and barriers to helping intoxicated peers in a sample of young adults from a university in the southeastern United States.</p> <p>College campuses have implemented a variety of interventions to reduce heavy alcohol consumption and the risk of alcohol-related emergencies ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref7">22</reflink>]), as alcohol misuse is a dynamic problem with many interdependent influences ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref8">3</reflink>]). For example, environmental-level interventions have<bold></bold>primarily focused on the development and enforcement of alcohol-related policies on campuses, which aim to reduce the availability of alcohol ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref9">39</reflink>]). These policies include—but are not limited to—banning alcohol use and possession on campus, mandating alcohol-free campus housing, encouraging alcohol-free campus activities (e.g., sober tailgates), and implementing zero-tolerance policies ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref10">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref11">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref12">37</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref13">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref14">45</reflink>]). Although these policies are created with good intentions, they may be associated with negative consequences, such as reducing the likelihood that students will seek emergency medical services for their intoxicated peers (Colby et al., 2000; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref15">17</reflink>]), due to fear of potential disciplinary consequences for themselves or their peers, despite medical amnesty policies ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref16">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>One prevention method showing promise to address alcohol-related emergencies is bystander intervention education ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref18">23</reflink>]). Bystander intervention education seeks to reduce the bystander effect, which posits that when multiple individuals are present during an emergency, the likelihood that an individual will intervene is reduced ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref19">21</reflink>]). In order to prevent the bystander effect, bystander intervention education programs seek to teach individuals to recognize health-risk behaviors, identify if the situation is an emergency, engage in the decision-making of whether to help and how to provide help, and finally, implement these decisions effectively ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref20">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Bystander intervention education has been used primarily to address the prevalence of sexual violence on college campuses ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref21">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref22">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref23">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref24">13</reflink>]; Kleinsasser et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref25">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref26">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref27">35</reflink>]); however, the bystander intervention training framework has been expanded to address other issues such as bullying and suicide ideation ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref28">40</reflink>]; Midgett et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref29">33</reflink>]). Moreover, bystander interventions focusing on reducing/preventing sexual violence have been expanded to incorporate alcohol-related interventions due in part, to the role that substance use plays in instances of sexual assault ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref30">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref31">23</reflink>]). Such programs have focused on training bystanders to intervene when they witness sexual violence situations accompanied by alcohol use, but have also begun to account for bystanders' own intoxication during these situations, which may hinder bystanders' likelihood to intervene and effectively respond to risky sexual situations ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref32">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref33">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref34">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>A growing number of studies have begun to focus on the use of bystander interventions to intervene on behalf of peers during episodes of alcohol intoxication and prevent future alcohol misuse in social contexts ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>]). Bystander intervention training programs are applicable to targeting alcohol misuse among young adults because they recognize the social characteristics of drinking episodes during this developmental period, especially within collegiate contexts. While overconsumption of alcohol may be considered normative in the college environment ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref36">30</reflink>]), dangerous levels of overconsumption may elicit bystander action, particularly when bystanders view the intoxicated person as a member of the ingroup ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref37">25</reflink>]). In other words, a shared social identity in college environments may facilitate bystander intervention, even in the presence of large crowds ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref38">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>The decision to help an intoxicated peer is likely influenced by several factors, specifically the perceived negative consequences associated with reporting alcohol misuse or seeking help in alcohol-related emergencies. Students who are concerned about peers' alcohol misuse behaviors, may be weighing the decision to help their peers against the possibility of facing disciplinary consequences related to university policy or sanctions (Haas & Welter, 2018), in addition to any negative social consequences (e.g., such as losing trust among the friend group, looking "lame," etc.). In previous research examining the barriers to bystander helping behaviors, the reasons for why individuals decided to help or not help varied based on perceived circumstances such as if others expressed concern, if the individual was in a hurry, or if the situation was perceived by the helper as dangerous ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref39">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref40">41</reflink>]). In addition to alcohol-related policies and sanctions, other reasons students may choose to avoid helping their intoxicated peers include difficulty in determining the difference between symptoms and non-symptoms of alcohol poisoning or underestimating the severity of the emergency situation due to their own intoxication (i.e., alcohol myopia; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref41">41</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179435147-3">Current Study</hd> <p>Expanding current policies and educational interventions on college campuses to include alcohol bystander intervention education presents a logical next step in addressing alcohol misuse among young adults in collegiate settings. However, there is a need for university administrators to first identify young adults' reported barriers and motivations for helping behaviors towards intoxicated peers in order to successfully plan and implement alcohol bystander interventions. The purpose of this study was to expand previous research to identify the motivations and barriers to helping intoxicated peers in a collegiate setting in the southeastern United Sates. This study was descriptive in nature and sought to identify the most common motivations and barriers to helping intoxicated peers, along with reported motivations/barrier differences by age, gender, race, and class standing in order to better inform bystander education programs.</p> <hd id="AN0179435147-4">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179435147-5">Sample and Procedure</hd> <p>A sample of 411 undergraduate students enrolled in general education courses were recruited from a large, public university in the southeastern United States during a fall academic semester prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were provided with the following statement for recruitment: "The purpose of this study is to learn about substance misuse from an "outsider's" perspective. In other words, instead of asking about your experiences using substances (alcohol/drugs), we would like to ask you about your experiences witnessing/observing other people using alcohol/drugs." Students who agreed to participate were provided with a link to an anonymous online survey administered through Qualtrics. The survey took less than 20 min to complete. Approval from the University of Alabama Institutional Review Board was granted prior to recruitment and data collection.</p> <p>Approximately 92% of the respondents completed 87% or more of the survey (<emph>N </emph>= 377): 281 women (75%), 96 men (1 participant preferred not to disclose their gender and was removed from the current analyses in order to examine gender differences). Participant ages ranged from 18 to 24 (<emph>M</emph><subs>age </subs>= 18.64; <emph>SD </emph>= 0.86) and 72% were in their first year of college. The ethnic/racial background of the sample was categorized as the following: White = 88%; Black = 7%; Other = 5%. Descriptives of the sample by women and men are presented in Table 1. In order to ensure that participants had prior experiences/interactions with intoxicating peers, participants were asked to report if they had ever witnessed someone who was "intoxicated, high, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol." Participants indicated whether they had ever witnessed eighteen substance-misuse related behaviors such as "slurred speech", "throwing up", "passed out", "being left at a bar or party", "getting into a verbal/physical fight", "getting arrested/driving under the influence." Participants who reported witnessing at least one of these behaviors were included in the current analyses. Only nine participants (2.4% of the sample) indicated that they had not witnessed any of the listed behaviors. Thus, the analytic sample size for the current study includes 368 young adults.</p> <p>Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Women</th><th align="center">Men</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Variables</th><th align="center">Mean (<italic>SD</italic>) or %</th><th align="center">Mean (<italic>SD</italic>) or %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gender</td><td>74.54%</td><td>25.46%</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>18.54 (0.81)</td><td>18.94 (0.92)</td></tr><tr><td>Race</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> White</td><td>88.61%</td><td>87.50%</td></tr><tr><td> Black</td><td>7.47%</td><td>7.29%</td></tr><tr><td> Other</td><td>3.91%</td><td>5.20%</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Class standing</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Freshman</td><td>77.58%</td><td>57.29%</td></tr><tr><td> Sophomore</td><td>19.57%</td><td>35.42%</td></tr><tr><td> Junior</td><td>1.78%</td><td>5.21%</td></tr><tr><td> Senior</td><td>1.07%</td><td>2.08%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> SD = standard deviation.</p> <hd id="AN0179435147-6">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179435147-7">Demographics</hd> <p>Participants were asked to provide information about their age, gender, race, and class standing (e.g., Freshman).</p> <hd id="AN0179435147-8">Motivation for Helping Intoxicated Peers</hd> <p>Participants were asked to indicate whether they had ever helped an intoxicated person before based on a list of possible helping behaviors (e.g., "Helping someone home", "Being the designated driver (DD)", "Keeping them accountable with how much they are drinking", "Giving them food and/or water", etc.). Participants also had the opportunity to list potential "Other" helping behaviors that were not included in the list. Participants who had previously engaged in at least one helping behavior were then asked to indicate their reasons/motivations for deciding to help in those situations. A total of 7 motivations for helping intoxicated peers were provided under the following question, "Why did you help in the situations above? Check all that apply." Each item was scored as <emph>yes </emph>= 1, <emph>no </emph>= 0. Motivations included: "Because it was your friend", "Because it was the right thing to do", "Because the intoxicated person helped you before", "Because it was your "turn" to be the helper/DD that night", "Because the person was going to get hurt", "Because you are always the helper", and "Because you didn't want to look bad." The scale items were developed by the authors after a literature review and several consultation meetings with 7 undergraduate research assistants who were considered experts of this particular University's culture.</p> <hd id="AN0179435147-9">Barriers to Helping Intoxicated Peers</hd> <p>Participants were asked if they had ever decided to <emph>not</emph> help an intoxicated person, and if so, to select the reasons for this decision. A total of 31 reasons were provided (each scored as <emph>yes </emph>= 1, <emph>no </emph>= 0). Similar to the Motivation items, the Barrier items were created by the authors after a literature review and several consultation meetings with 7 undergraduate research assistants who were considered experts of this particular University's culture. The list of barriers was substantially longer than the list of motivations so the authors grouped the items into subscales that represented three different constructs of barriers to helping intoxicated peers, including: "Fear of Negative Consequences" (9 items, <emph>α</emph> = 0.86), "Ability/Resource Barriers" (11 items, <emph>α</emph> = 0.84), and "Burden/Hassles" (11 items, <emph>α</emph> = 0.89).</p> <hd id="AN0179435147-10">Statistical Analysis</hd> <p>Data was analyzed using Stata version 16. Chi-square statistics and t-tests were conducted with the seven Motivation items and the three Barrier subscales to determine whether reported motivations and barriers differed by age, gender, race, and class standing (respectively). Age (range 18–24) was coded as age eighteen = 0, age 19 and older =1; Gender was coded as man = 1, woman = 0; Race was coded as White = 0, non-White = 1; Class standing was coded as Freshmen = 0, upper classmen = 1.</p> <hd id="AN0179435147-11">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179435147-12">Motivation and Barrier Frequencies</hd> <p>Response frequencies and percentages for each of the motivation items are presented in Table 2. The most frequently endorsed motivating factors for helping an intoxicated peer was "Because the person was your friend," and "Because it was the right thing to do," each endorsed by 98% of the sample. The least frequently endorsed motivating factor for helping intoxicated peers was "Because you didn't want to look bad," endorsed by approximately 24% of the sample.</p> <p>Table 2. Frequency of Bystander Motivations for Helping Intoxicated Peers (n = 351–353).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="(" /><col align="center" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Items</th><th align="left">No. (%) Yes</th><th align="left">Total No.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Because the person was your friend</td><td>346 (98.0)</td><td>353</td></tr><tr><td>2. Because it was the right thing to do</td><td>346 (98.0)</td><td>353</td></tr><tr><td>3. Because the intoxicated person helped you before</td><td>199 (56.5)</td><td>352</td></tr><tr><td>4. Because it was your "turn" to be the helper/DD that night</td><td>188 (53.4)</td><td>352</td></tr><tr><td>5. Because the person was going to get hurt</td><td>251 (71.1)</td><td>353</td></tr><tr><td>6. Because you are always the helper</td><td>224 (63.6)</td><td>352</td></tr><tr><td>7. Because you didn't want to look bad</td><td>84 (23.9)</td><td>351</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note.</emph> DD = Designated driver.</p> <p>Response frequencies and percentages for each of the barrier items are presented in Table 3. Of the three subscales, the Ability/Resource Barrier subscale had the highest overall mean of endorsed scale items (<emph>M </emph>= 0.28, <emph>SD </emph>= 0.27) compared to the Burden/Hassles subscale (<emph>M </emph>= 0.20, <emph>SD </emph>= 0.28) and the Fear of Negative Consequences subscale (<emph>M </emph>= 0.13, <emph>SD </emph>= 0.23). The most frequently endorsed barrier item (43% of the sample) was "You were intoxicated," which is an item on the Ability/Resource Barrier subscale. There were 4 additional items on the Ability/Resource Barrier subscale that exceeded 30%: "The person told you to stop (they didn't want or need help)," "You didn't know the person," "You didn't know the person needed help," and "You thought someone else would help." The least frequently endorsed individual item (< 5% of the sample) was "You didn't want other people to think you're lame," which is on the Fear of Negative Consequences subscale.</p> <p>Table 3. Frequency of Bystander Barriers to Helping Intoxicated Peers (n = 362–365).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="(" /><col align="center" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Fear of Negative Consequences (<italic>M </italic>= 0.13, <italic>SD </italic>= 0.23)</th><th align="left">No. (%) Yes</th><th align="left">Total No.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. You didn't want to get in trouble</td><td>55 (15.1)</td><td>364</td></tr><tr><td>2. You didn't want other people to think you're lame</td><td>18 (4.9)</td><td>364</td></tr><tr><td>3. The intoxicated person was acting dangerously/You might get hurt</td><td>60 (16.5)</td><td>364</td></tr><tr><td>4. You didn't want to get the person in trouble</td><td>56 (15.5)</td><td>362</td></tr><tr><td>5. You didn't want to go to the hospital/jail/RA's room</td><td>42 (11.5)</td><td>365</td></tr><tr><td>6. You were afraid you might do more harm than good</td><td>59 (16.3)</td><td>363</td></tr><tr><td>7. You were scared they might get mad at you later</td><td>38 (10.4)</td><td>365</td></tr><tr><td>8. You were afraid their parents would get mad</td><td>35 (9.6)</td><td>365</td></tr><tr><td>9. You didn't want to be held responsible for them if something happened</td><td>67 (18.4)</td><td>365</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Ability/Resource Barriers</bold> (<italic>M </italic>= 0.28, <italic>SD </italic>= 0.27)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>1. You didn't know the person</td><td>134 (36.8)</td><td>364</td></tr><tr><td>2. You didn't know CPR</td><td>43 (11.8)</td><td>364</td></tr><tr><td>3. You didn't have transportation to drive them home/to the hospital</td><td>102 (27.9)</td><td>365</td></tr><tr><td>4. You were intoxicated</td><td>157 (43.0)</td><td>365</td></tr><tr><td>5. The person told you to stop (they didn't want or need help)</td><td>153 (41.9)</td><td>365</td></tr><tr><td>6. Thought someone else would help</td><td>117 (32.1)</td><td>364</td></tr><tr><td>7. You didn't have any money to help</td><td>56 (15.4)</td><td>364</td></tr><tr><td>8. You didn't know how to help</td><td>101 (27.7)</td><td>365</td></tr><tr><td>9. You didn't know the person needed help</td><td>127 (34.9)</td><td>364</td></tr><tr><td>10. You didn't know where the person lived</td><td>57 (15.6)</td><td>364</td></tr><tr><td>11. Your phone was dead</td><td>64 (17.6)</td><td>363</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Burden/Hassles</bold> (<italic>M </italic>= 0.20, <italic>SD </italic>= 0.28)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>1. You were already in bed</td><td>99 (27.2)</td><td>364</td></tr><tr><td>2. Their drunk personality annoyed you</td><td>67 (18.4)</td><td>365</td></tr><tr><td>3. You thought the person who needed help was being dramatic/exaggerating</td><td>96 (26.4)</td><td>364</td></tr><tr><td>4. You didn't want to leave the party/bar</td><td>61 (16.8)</td><td>364</td></tr><tr><td>5. You didn't want vomit in your car/house or on your clothes</td><td>70 (19.2)</td><td>365</td></tr><tr><td>6. You didn't want the hassle</td><td>61 (16.7)</td><td>365</td></tr><tr><td>7. You had to be up early in the morning</td><td>84 (23.1)</td><td>364</td></tr><tr><td>8. You didn't like the person</td><td>58 (15.9)</td><td>364</td></tr><tr><td>9. You thought "He/She does this every week...He/She needs to learn" (wanted them to learn a lesson)</td><td>71 (19.5)</td><td>365</td></tr><tr><td>10. Thought it was not your problem</td><td>99 (27.2)</td><td>364</td></tr><tr><td>11. It was your night to NOT be a "parent"</td><td>53 (14.5)</td><td>365</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note:</emph> CRP = cardiopulmonary resuscitation.</p> <hd id="AN0179435147-13">Differences by Age, Gender, Race, and Class Standing on Bystander Motivations and Barriers</hd> <p>Chi-square tests for differences in the seven motivation items across age, gender, race, and class standing are reported in Table 4. The Pearson's chi-square statistics are reported with Fisher's exact test <emph>p</emph>-values in order to account for item categories with zero responses or small frequencies. Significant differences between the eighteen year old group and those who reported being age nineteen or older on the motivation item, "Because it was your "turn" to be the helper/DD that night" (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref42">1</reflink>) = 6.47, <emph>p </emph>= 0.01) were found. For this item, respondents age nineteen and older were more likely to endorse this type of motivation than were those who were age eighteen. Marginally significant differences by gender (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>) = 3.77, <emph>p </emph>= 0.07) and significant differences by race (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref44">1</reflink>) = 7.06, <emph>p </emph>= 0.03) were also reported for the motivation item, "Because the person was your friend". This item was more frequently endorsed by female participants (compared to male participants) and White participants (compared to non-White participants).</p> <p>Table 4. Differences in Bystander Motivations for Helping Intoxicated Peers by Age, Gender, Race, and Class Standing.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center" colspan="2">Age</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Gender</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Race</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Class Standing</th></tr><tr><th align="center" /><th align="center" colspan="2">N</th><th align="center" colspan="2">N</th><th align="center" colspan="2">N</th><th align="center" colspan="2">N</th></tr><tr><th align="center" /><th align="center" colspan="2">χ<sup>2</sup> (df)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">χ<sup>2</sup> (df)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">χ<sup>2</sup> (df)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">χ<sup>2</sup> (df)</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Items (yes)</th><th align="center">18 yr.</th><th align="center">≥ 19 yr.</th><th align="center">Women</th><th align="center">Men</th><th align="center">White</th><th align="center">Non-White</th><th align="center">1st yr.</th><th align="center">≥ 2nd yr.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Because the person was your friend</td><td>182</td><td>162</td><td><bold>260</bold></td><td><bold>86</bold></td><td><bold>309</bold></td><td><bold>37</bold></td><td>252</td><td>94</td></tr><tr><td /><td colspan="2">0.05 (1)</td><td colspan="2"><bold>3.77* (1)</bold></td><td colspan="2"><bold>7.06** (1)</bold></td><td colspan="2">0.01 (1)</td></tr><tr><td>2. Because it was the right thing to do</td><td>181</td><td>163</td><td>258</td><td>88</td><td>308</td><td>38</td><td>251</td><td>95</td></tr><tr><td /><td colspan="2">0.98 (1)</td><td colspan="2">0.04 (1)</td><td colspan="2">2.11 (1)</td><td colspan="2">0.60 (1)</td></tr><tr><td>3. Because the intoxicated person helped you before</td><td>100</td><td>98</td><td>146</td><td>53</td><td>178</td><td>21</td><td>140</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td /><td colspan="2">1.27 (1)</td><td colspan="2">0.44 (1)</td><td colspan="2">0.30 (1)</td><td colspan="2">1.64 (1)</td></tr><tr><td>4. Because it was your "turn" to be the helper/DD that night</td><td><bold>87</bold></td><td><bold>99</bold></td><td>138</td><td>50</td><td>170</td><td>18</td><td>131</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td /><td colspan="2"><bold>6.47** (1)</bold></td><td colspan="2">0.37 (1)</td><td colspan="2">1.28 (1)</td><td colspan="2">2.27 (1)</td></tr><tr><td>5. Because the person was going to get hurt</td><td>129</td><td>120</td><td>189</td><td>62</td><td>225</td><td>26</td><td>179</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td /><td colspan="2">0.48 (1)</td><td colspan="2">0.29 (1)</td><td colspan="2">0.82 (1)</td><td colspan="2">0.97 (1)</td></tr><tr><td>6. Because you are always the helper</td><td>121</td><td>102</td><td>171</td><td>53</td><td>194</td><td>30</td><td>165</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td /><td colspan="2">0.31 (1)</td><td colspan="2">0.86 (1)</td><td colspan="2">2.52 (1)</td><td colspan="2">0.13 (1)</td></tr><tr><td>7. Because you didn't want to look bad</td><td>45</td><td>38</td><td>60</td><td>24</td><td>72</td><td>12</td><td>62</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td /><td colspan="2">0.06 (1)</td><td colspan="2">0.60 (1)</td><td colspan="2">0.91 (1)</td><td colspan="2">0.02 (1)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note.</emph> df = degrees of freedom; Estimates for age, gender, race, and class standing reflect frequencies and Pearson's chi-square statistics with Fisher's exact test; Significant findings are in bold, *<emph>p </emph>≤ 0.10, **<emph>p </emph>≤ 0.05.</p> <p>The results of the t-tests to examine whether means on the Barrier subscales differed by age, gender, race, and class standing are reported in Table 5. Significant mean differences reported on the Burden/Hassles subscale were found by gender (<emph>t </emph>= −2.24, <emph>p </emph>= 0.03), such that men reported more burden-related barriers (<emph>M </emph>= 0.26, <emph>SD </emph>= 0.03) than did women (<emph>M </emph>= 0.19, <emph>SD </emph>= 0.02). Additionally, there was a marginally significant difference in the means on the Fear of Negative Consequences subscale by race (<emph>t </emph>= −1.82, <emph>p </emph>= 0.07), such that non-White participants endorsed more barrier items related to fear of negative consequences (<emph>M </emph>= 0.19, <emph>SD </emph>= 0.04) compared to White participants (<emph>M </emph>= 0.12, <emph>SD </emph>= 0.01). None of the means on three Barrier subscales differed by age or class standing.</p> <p>Table 5. Differences in Bystander Barriers for Helping Intoxicated Peers by Age, Gender, Race, and Class Standing.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center" /><th align="center" colspan="2">Age</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Gender</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Race</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Class Standing</th></tr><tr><th align="center" /><th align="center" colspan="2">Mean</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Mean</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Mean</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Mean</th></tr><tr><th align="center" /><th align="center" colspan="2">(T-statistic)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">(T-statistic)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">(T-statistic)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">(T-statistic)</th></tr><tr><th>Subscales</th><th>18 yr.</th><th>≥ 19 yr.</th><th>Women</th><th>Men</th><th>White</th><th>Non-White</th><th>1st yr.</th><th>≥ 2nd yr.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Fear of Negative Consequences</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.16</td><td><bold>0</bold>.<bold>12</bold></td><td><bold>0</bold>.<bold>19</bold></td><td>0.13</td><td>0.14</td></tr><tr><td /><td colspan="2">(−1.19)</td><td colspan="2">(−1.43)</td><td colspan="2"><bold>(−1.82*)</bold></td><td colspan="2">(−0.18)</td></tr><tr><td>Ability/Resource Barriers</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.30</td></tr><tr><td /><td colspan="2">(−1.45)</td><td colspan="2">(−1.03)</td><td colspan="2">(−0.62)</td><td colspan="2">(−1.10)</td></tr><tr><td>Burden/Hassles</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.22</td><td><bold>0.19</bold></td><td><bold>0.26</bold></td><td>0.20</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td /><td colspan="2">(−0.67)</td><td colspan="2"><bold>(−2.24**)</bold></td><td colspan="2">(−0.62)</td><td colspan="2">(0.03)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Note.</emph> Estimates for age, gender, race, and class standing reflect means and t-tests; Significant findings are in bold, *<emph>p </emph>≤ 0.10, **<emph>p </emph>≤ 0.05.</p> <hd id="AN0179435147-14">Discussion</hd> <p>As bystander interventions for alcohol use and related risk behaviors are becoming more prevalent on college campuses, there is a need for evidence-informed recommendations to improve and enhance such interventions. The present study surveyed college students about their reasons for helping intoxicated peers (motivations) in addition to their perceived barriers to helping. This study defined "helping" as behaviors that serve to assist someone who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, such as helping someone return home safely, giving intoxicated peers food and/or water, etc. The goal of this study was to identify reported motivations and barriers for helping intoxicated peers and to determine if there were any differences in reported motivations/barriers by age, gender, race, and class standing.</p> <p>In terms of reported motivations for helping intoxicated peers, the two most commonly endorsed reasons for helping others (endorsed by 98% of the sample) were related to personal relationships ("Because the person was your friend") and benevolence ("Because it was the right thing to do"). These findings are consistent with reasons college students report for helping peers in situations involving potential sexual assault and dating violence ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref45">9</reflink>]). These findings are also consistent with the notion of shared social identity and ingroup regulation as facilitators to helping in dangerous situations within a group or crowd ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref46">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref47">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref48">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>For reported barriers to helping intoxicated peers, the Ability/Resource Barriers subscale scored the highest mean among the endorsed barrier items compared to the Burden/Hassles and Fear of Negative Consequences subscales. Potential barriers on the Ability/Resource Barrier subscale included issues such as not knowing how to help, not having any money to help, and personal intoxication. The single most frequently endorsed barrier (43% of the sample) was personal intoxication. Bystander intoxication has been cited in the extant literature as a barrier to helping ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref49">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref50">32</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref51">24</reflink>]) found in a laboratory setting that intoxicated participants were less likely and slower to intervene in a bystander situation related to unwanted sexual attention. Previous studies have examined the influence of alcohol myopia on bystander interventions ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref52">23</reflink>]). Alcohol myopia is one of the most well-accepted explanations of the effects of alcohol intoxication on behavior. When individuals are sober, they can focus on salient and less salient cues in the environment. However, when the individual has been consuming alcohol or is intoxicated, they may only be able to focus on immediate, salient cues in the environment. For instance, the effect of alcohol on helping behavior in situations of sexual violence is mediated by narrowed attention capacity ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref53">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additional barriers endorsed by over 30% of the sample included issues related to the situational model of bystander behavior. This model describes stages to bystander helping, including noticing the event, identifying the event as needing intervention, taking responsibility to intervene, deciding how to help, and finally, the act of intervening (Latané & Darley, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref54">20</reflink>]). Participants in this study reported barriers related to not knowing if the person needed help and assuming someone else would help. Participants also reported barriers related to their relationship with the intoxicated peer, including not knowing the person very well. Previous literature has shown increased rates of bystander assistance in situations involving friends compared to strangers ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref55">5</reflink>]; Bennet et al., 2017).</p> <p>Significant differences by age and race on self-reported motivations to helping intoxicated peers were also found in the current study. Older participants (age 19 and older) reported higher endorsement for the motivation item related to upholding their responsibility as the "helper/designated driver" that night. This finding suggests that older participants may have acquired greater experience with helping intoxicated peers/friends than have younger participants and thus, may feel more confident in the role as a designated sober driver/helper. Although previous research has found that older participants (age 21–25) are <emph>less</emph> likely to both consistently and inconsistently intervene (versus not intervene) when they witnessed someone drinking too much compared to underage peers ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref56">43</reflink>]), our finding suggests that older participants may be more motivated to intervene if they form a plan to intervene/be the helper <emph>prior</emph> to attending or engaging in drinking situations.</p> <p>Racial differences were also observed in reported motivation to help intoxicated friends, such that White participants (compared to non-White participants) were more likely to cite friendship as a motivating factor towards helping intoxicated peers. This finding might be particularly explained by racial differences in cultural expectations/perceptions and behaviors surrounding alcohol use. Indeed, non-White adolescents and young adults are likely to exhibit lower heavy drinking prevalence than do Whites ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref57">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref58">42</reflink>]); therefore, non-White young adults may be less likely to associate with peers who are heavy alcohol users.</p> <p>Regarding self-reported barriers to helping intoxicated peers, the current study found that men reported more burden and hassles-related barriers than did women. Indeed, previous research suggests that women are significantly more likely to intervene when witnessing heavy drinking behaviors than are males ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref59">43</reflink>]) and that women report more confidence in their ability to intervene into peers' drinking behaviors, particularly for more intrusive intervention behaviors (e.g., preventing a peer from drinking too much, taking a drink away from a peer, and getting a peer to leave a bar/party) compared to males ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref60">8</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179435147-15">Implications</hd> <p>Results of the present study are relevant for the development of bystander interventions for alcohol misuse on college campuses. The current study suggests that alcohol-related bystander interventions may benefit from a focus on reinforcing personal morals and strengthening bonds of friendship, as well as group identity/connectedness in order to help increase motivation to help in situations where alcohol misuse is present. Moreover, ability and resource barriers are good targets for intervention, but some of these barriers are more challenging to change, such as personal intoxication. Intervention programs should promote turn-taking for peer groups (e.g., designated driver) and ways to minimize burdens, especially for men. Campuses should consider creating Good Samaritan policies on campus that might address fears of negative consequences, particularly for non-White students. Although the current investigation did not find evidence for reported differences by class standing on bystander motivations and barriers, previous research suggests that first-year university students may benefit from early bystander interventions due to inexperience in managing their own and others' behaviors within the contexts of heavy drinking ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref61">8</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179435147-16">Limitations</hd> <p>The results of this study should be interpreted within the context of its limitations. First, the findings are limited to the current population of students attending a university in the southeastern United States; therefore, the generalizability of the findings to other collegiate populations warrants future investigations. Second, the current study included a population of predominately White women, thus, replication is needed with more diverse samples of college students. Third, the sample included young adults ages 18–24, therefore the findings are limited to a specific age group of college students and cannot be generalized to populations of older students. Fourth, although the size of the sample was acceptable, future research would benefit from utilizing even larger samples to support greater statistical power to detect even very small effects. Fifth, the reliance on single items to assess bystander motivations may have limited our ability to accurately measure bystander motivations<bold>. </bold>Indeed, validating the items of the motivation and barrier subscales is a goal for future research. Moreover, future research should seek to create standardized measures for bystander motivations that perhaps represent different subtypes of motivative factors (e.g., general altruism versus ingroup motivations). Additionally, the retrospective nature of the self-reported motivation and barrier items (e.g., participants reported why they helped in previous situations) limits the ecological validity of measuring motivations/barriers to helping intoxicated peers in the current study. Future research may seek to observe these constructs within naturalistic social contexts. Finally, the cross-sectional nature of the current study does not allow for an examination of whether motivations and barriers to helping intoxicated peers changes over time or across a variety of social contexts (e.g., helping intoxicated peers at bars, house parties, tailgates, etc.). Future research may seek to examine changes in bystander motivations and barriers over time, as well as more carefully consider differences in bystander behaviors across drinking situations and social contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0179435147-17">Conclusions</hd> <p>The findings from this study provide support for the development and implementation of alcohol bystander interventions. Additionally, this study provides evidence that college students are more likely to report that they intervened when an intoxicated peer is someone that they know. Future interventions should consider minimizing perceived burdens to helping intoxicated peers and emphasize the absence of legal repercussions to helping peers in heavy drinking situations.</p> <ref id="AN0179435147-18"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref4" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abbey A., Zawacki T., Buck P. O., Testa M., Parks K., Norris J., Martin S. E., Livingston J. A., McAuslan P., Clinton A. M., Kennedy C. L., George W. H., Davis K. C., Martell J. (2002). How does alcohol contribute to sexual assault? Explanations from laboratory and survey data. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 26(4), 575–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2002.tb02576.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anthenien A. M., Neighbors C., Rosa J. (2017). Training first-year college students to intervene in alcohol-related emergencies: Addressing bystander beliefs and perceived consequences of intervening. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 61(3), 17–36. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/48517811">www.jstor.org/stable/48517811</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref8" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Apostolopoulos Y., Lemke M. K., Barry A. E., Lich K. H. (2018). Moving alcohol prevention research forward—part I: Introducing a complex systems paradigm. Addiction, 113(2), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13955</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref21" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Banyard V. L., Moynihan M. M., Plante E. G. (2007). Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref55" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bennett S., Banyard V. L. (2016). Do friends really help friends? The effect of relational factors and perceived severity on bystander perception of sexual violence. Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037708</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bennett S., Banyard V. L., Edwards K. M. (2017). The impact of the bystander's relationship with the victim and the perpetrator on intent to help in situations involving sexual violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(5), 682–702. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626051558673</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref30" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bennett S., Banyard V. L., Garnhart L. (2014). To act or not to act, that is the question? Barriers and facilitators of bystander intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(3), 476–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513505210</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref60" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Boekeloo B., Griffin M. (2009). Collegiates' intention and confidence to intervene into others' drinking. American Journal of Health Behavior, 33(1), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.33.1.9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref45" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Casper D. M., Witte T., Stanfield M. H. (2021). A person I cared about was involved": Exploring bystander motivation to help in incidents of potential sexual assault and dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(9/10), 4406–4430. https://doi.org/ https://doi-org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.1177/0886260518791232</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coker A. L., Bush H. M., Fisher B. S., Swan S. C., Williams C. M., Clear E. R., DeGue S. (2016). Multi-college bystander intervention evaluation for violence prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50(3), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.08.034</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coker A. L., Fisher B. S., Bush H. M., Swan S. C., Williams C. M., Clear E. R., DeGue S. (2015). Evaluation of the green dot bystander intervention to reduce interpersonal violence among college students across three campuses. Violence Against Women, 21(12), 1507–1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214545284</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colby J. J., Raymond G. A., Colby S. M. (2000). Evaluation of a college policy mandating treatment for students with substantiated drinking problems. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 395–404.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook-Craig P. G., Coker A. L., Clear E. R., Garcia L. S., Bush H. M., Brancato C. J., Fisher B. S. (2014). Challenge and opportunity in evaluating a diffusion-based active bystanding prevention program green dot in high schools. Violence Against Women, 20(10), 1179–1202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214551288</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeJong W., Langford L. M. (2002). A typology for campus-based alcohol prevention: Moving toward environmental management strategies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement, (s14), 140–147. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.140</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fischer P., Greitemeyer T., Pollozek F., Frey D. (2006). The unresponsive bystander: Are bystanders more responsive in dangerous emergencies? European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(2), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.297</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ham L. S., Wiersma-Mosley J. D., Wolkowicz N. R., Jozkowski K. N., Bridges A. J., Melkonian A. J. (2019). Effect of alcohol intoxication on bystander intervention in a vignette depiction of sexual assault. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 80(2), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2019.80.252</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haas, A. L., & Welter, N. C. (2018). Impact of a university alcoholpolicy change on bystander responses to alcohol-related medical emergencies. Journal of Drug Education, 48(3-4), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047237919880949</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keyes K. M., Vo T., Wall M. M., Caetano R., Suglia S. F., Martins S. S., Hasin D. (2015). Racial/ethnic differences in use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana: Is there a cross-over from adolescence to adulthood? Social Science & Medicine, 124, 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.11.035</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kleinsasser A., Jouriles E. N., Mcdonald R., Rosenfield D. (2015). An online bystander intervention program for the prevention of sexual violence. Psychology of Violence, 5(3), 227–235.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Latané B., Darley J. M. (1969). Bystander "apathy". American Scientist, 57(2), 244–268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Latané B., Darley J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help?Meredith Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lenk K. M., Erikson D. J., Nelson T. F., Winters K. C., Toomey T. L. (2012). Alcohol policies and practices among four-year colleges in the United States: Prevalence and patterns. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73(3), 361–367. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2012.73.361</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leone R. M., Haikalis M., Parrott D. J., DiLillo D. (2018). Bystander intervention to prevent sexual violence: The overlooked role of bystander alcohol intoxication. Psychology of Violence, 8(5), 639–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000155</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leone R. M., Parrott D. J. (2019). Acute alcohol intoxication inhibits bystander intervention behavior for sexual aggression among men with high intent to help. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 43(1), 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.13920</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levine M., Crowther S. (2008). The responsive bystander: How social group membership and group size can encourage as well as inhibit bystander intervention. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1429–1439. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012634</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levine M., Lowe R., Best R., Heim D. (2012). We police it ourselves": Group process in the escalation and regulation of violence in the night-time economy. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(7), 924–932. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1905</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levine M., Manning R. (2013). Social identity, group processes, and helping in emergencies. European Review of Social Psychology, 24(1), 225–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.892318</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levine M., Philpot R., Kovalenko A. G. (2020). Rethinking the bystander effect in violence reduction training programs. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12063</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis D. K., Marchell T. C. (2006). Safety first: A medical amnesty approach to alcohol poisoning at a U.S. university. International Journal of Drug Policy, 17(4), 329–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2006.02.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis M. A., Neighbors C. (2004). Gender-specific misperceptions of college student drinking norms. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 334–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.18.4.334</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMahon S. M., Hoge G. L., Johnson L., McMahon S. (2021). Stand up and do something": Exploring Students' perspectives on bystander intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7-8), NP3869–NP3888. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518782984</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Melkonian A. J., Ham L. S., Wiersma-Mosley J. D., Jackson K. K., Mobley A. M., Jozkowski K. N., Willis M., Bridges A. J. (2020). Alcohol intoxication impairs the bystander intervention process in a hypothetical sexual assault: A field investigation. Psychology of Violence, 10(6), 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000283</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Midgett A., Doumas D. M., Peralta C., Bond L., Flay B. (2020). Impact of a brief, bystander bullying prevention program on depressive symptoms and passive suicidal Ideation: A program evaluation model for school personnel. Journal of Prevention and Health Promotion, 1(1), 80–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/2632077020942959</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell R., Toomey T. L., Erickson D. (2010). Alcohol policies on college campuses. Journal of American College Health, 53(4), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.53.4.149-157</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moynihan M. M., Banyard V. L., Arnold J. S., Eckstein R. P., Stapleton J. G. (2010). Engaging intercollegiate athletes in preventing and intervening in sexual and intimate partner violence. Journal of American College Health, 59(3), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2010.502195</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Naeger S.Emergency department visits involving underage alcohol use: 2010 to 2013. The CBHSQ Report: May 16, 2017. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville, MD.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAA) (2002a). A call to action: Changing the culture of drinking at US colleges. US Dept of Health and Human Services, NIAA. https://<ulink href="http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/media/taskforcereport.pdf">www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/media/taskforcereport.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) (2002b). High-risk drinking in college: What we know and what we need to learn. US Dept of Health and Human Services, NIAA. https://<ulink href="http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/media/finalpanel1.pdf">www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/media/finalpanel1.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). (2015). Planning alcohol interventions using NIAAA's CollegeAIM (Alcohol Intervention Matrix). https://<ulink href="http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/collegeaim/resources/niaaa%5fcollege%5fmatrix%5fbooklet.pdf">www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/collegeaim/resources/niaaa%5fcollege%5fmatrix%5fbooklet.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olweus D., Limber S. P., Breivik K. (2012). Addressing specific forms of bullying: A large-scale evaluation of the olweus bullying prevention program. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 1, 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-019-00009-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oster-Aaland L., Lewis M. A., Neighhbors C., Vangsness J., Larimer M. E. (2009). Alcohol poisoning among college students turning 21: Do they recognize the symptoms and how do they help? Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, Supplement, (s16), 122–130. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsads.2009.s16.122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pamplin J. R., Susser E. S., Factor-Litvak P., Link B. G., Keyes K. M. (2020). Racial differences in alcohol and tobacco use in adolescence and mid-adulthood in a community-based sample. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 55(4), 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-019-01777-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanem J. R., Erickson D. J., Nelson T. F., Toomey T. L. (2019). What affects college students' decision to intervene or not intervene when someone is drinking too much? Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 80(3), 310–313. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2019.80.310</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2020). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. PEP20-07-01-001, NSDUH Series H-55). Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.samhsa.gov/data/">www.samhsa.gov/data/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toomey T. L., Wagenaar A. C. (2002). Environmental policies to reduce college drinking: Options and research findings. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement, (s14), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.193</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wells S., Graham K. (1999). The frequency of third-party involvement in incidents of barroom aggression. Contemporary Drug Problems, 26, 457–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/009145099902600306</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0179435147-19"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Meghan E. Burroughs is currently affiliated with The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA. Jennifer L. Evans is currently affiliated with Northeastern University, Boson, MA, USA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: JMG was supported by the National Institutes of Health; NIDA, (grant number K01DA054262).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jamie M. Gajos https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7762-811X Tricia H. Witte https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2102-5111</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jamie M. Gajos; Tricia H. Witte; Bridget B. Weymouth; Meghan E. Burroughs and Jennifer L. Evans</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Jamie M. Gajos is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Family and Community Medicine in the Heersink School of Medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. She earned her PhD in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Florida State University. Her research examines the influence of environmental and individual-level factors on the course and variability of substance use and other health-risk behaviors across time and within important proximal social contexts.</p> <p>Tricia H. Witte is an Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Studies and a member of the Executive Council for the Center for Substance Use Research and Related Conditions at The University of Alabama. She earned a PhD in Clinical Psychology from the University of Arkansas and is a licensed psychologist in the state of Alabama. Her research interests include substance use and misuse, trauma, dating violence, and sexual assault.</p> <p>Bridget B. Weymouth is an Assistant Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at The University of Alabama. She earned a PhD in Human Development and Family Studies from The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Her scholarly interests include adolescent substance use and misuse, social anxiety, and family conflict.</p> <p>Meghan E. Burroughs is a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Department of Health Science at The University of Alabama. She earned her PhD in Health Education and Promotion from The University of Alabama and is a Master Certified Health Education Specialist. Her academic research is focused on two major areas: young adult substance use and misuse, and the use and impact of social media on health and health behaviors.</p> <p>Jennifer L. Evans is an Assistant Teaching Professor in the Department of Public Health and Health Science at Northeastern University. She earned her PhD in Health Education and Promotion from The University of Alabama and is a Master Certified Health Education Specialist. Her research focus is on sexual health with a special interest in condom negotiation, condom use resistance, and hookup culture.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref58"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1438490
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Bystander Motivations and Barriers to Helping Intoxicated Peers
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jamie+M%2E+Gajos%22">Jamie M. Gajos</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7762-811X">0000-0001-7762-811X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tricia+H%2E+Witte%22">Tricia H. Witte</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2102-5111">0000-0003-2102-5111</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bridget+B%2E+Weymouth%22">Bridget B. Weymouth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Meghan+E%2E+Burroughs%22">Meghan E. Burroughs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jennifer+L%2E+Evans%22">Jennifer L. Evans</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Drug+Education%22"><i>Journal of Drug Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 53(3-4):63-80.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (DHHS/PHS)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: K01DA054262
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Motivation%22">Student Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Drinking%22">Drinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Differences%22">Age Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racial+Differences%22">Racial Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Program+Divisions%22">Instructional Program Divisions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Helping+Relationship%22">Helping Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Colleges%22">Public Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Drug+Use%22">Drug Use</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/00472379241246368
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0047-2379<br />1541-4159
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: We examined the prevalence of self-reported motivations and barriers to helping intoxicated peers among emerging adults (N = 377; M[subscript age] = 18.64; 75% women, 88% White) attending a Southeastern university and whether motivations and barriers differed by age, gender, race, and class standing. Respondents aged 19-24 were more likely to endorse the motivation item "Because it was your "turn" to be the helper/designated driver (DD) that night" than eighteen-year-olds. Race differences were also reported for the motivation item, "Because the person was your friend", where White participants were more likely to endorse this item than non-White participants. Men also reported more Burden/Hassles-related barriers than did women.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1438490
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1438490
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/00472379241246368
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 63
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Drinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Racial Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Program Divisions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Helping Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Drug Use
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Bystander Motivations and Barriers to Helping Intoxicated Peers
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jamie M. Gajos
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tricia H. Witte
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bridget B. Weymouth
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Meghan E. Burroughs
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jennifer L. Evans
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0047-2379
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1541-4159
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3-4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Drug Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1