Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
To analyze the mechanisms underlying the effect of the intervention in analysis on the willingness to intervene and the incentivized behavior, we use a set of secondary outcomes:
1) Following most bystander intervention programs, the intervention aims to increase the participants’ willingness to intervene by teaching the skills for safe and effective intervention. Learning these skills should increase participants’ self-efficacy. Thus, we use bystander efficacy as our first secondary outcome. Therefore, we employ the same set of items as in our first scale and ask respondents’ for their self-confidence in performing these behaviors on an 11-point scale.
2) According to the bystander intervention model (Latané & Darley, 1968, 1970) a bystander has to overcome five barriers before she or he will engage in helping behavior: (1) Detection of the emergency situation, (2) interpretation of the situation as an emergency, (3) assumption of own responsibility, (4) perception of having the necessary skills, and (5) decision to intervene. Our intervention teaches the skills necessary for detecting and interpreting situations as emergencies. Furthermore, it fosters participants’ assumption of responsibility. After the intervention, participants should thus perceive to have the skills necessary for intervention. Finally, when making the decision whether to help, bystanders conduct a cost-benefit analysis weighing the costs and benefits of intervening against the costs and benefits of non-intervening. A higher acceptance of negative social consequences should decrease the costs of intervening. In reverse, empathy, indignation and anticipated guilt should increase the costs of non-intervening. Each of these factors should lead to a positive decision to intervene. We measure each of these parameters using scales with one or two items each
3) Following the reasoned action approach (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2011), the intention to perform any given social behavior is the single best predictor of an individual actually performing that behavior. Intention in turn is a function of the attitudes towards performing the behavior, perceived social norms with respect to the behavior, and perceived control over performing the behavior. We measure behavioral intention, attitude, perceived norms, and perceived control with respect to a specific bystander helping behavior using one or two items each.