|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
There is a long-standing interest in the impact of bystander intervention programs on bystander helping behavior in violent situations. Furthermore, the question has arisen of how such programs might be enhanced using persuasive technology. We provide experimental evidence for the effect of an interactive online bystander intervention on bystander attitudes, bystander efficacy, and bystander behavior.
|
After
There is a long-standing interest in the impact of bystander intervention programs on bystander helping behavior in violent situations. Furthermore, the question has arisen of how such programs might be enhanced using persuasive technology based on the gamification approach. We provide experimental evidence for the effect of an interactive online bystander intervention on (1) the willingness to intervene in situations with a high risk of violence to occur and (2) the actual donation to victim support, which serves as a proxy variable of actual bystander helping behavior.
|
|
Field
Trial Start Date
|
Before
May 06, 2020
|
After
May 12, 2020
|
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
July 16, 2020
|
After
July 31, 2020
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
April 28, 2020 10:53 AM
|
After
May 12, 2020 06:14 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
Treatment:
The treatment is supplied on a proprietary website. It consists of an interactive film and a subsequent quiz. Both the film and the quiz follow the gamification approach by using game principles and design elements. The interactive film puts the viewer in the position of a witness who observes a potentially violent situation. After each sequence of the film, a pop-up asks the viewer to choose one of two options for action. Depending on these choices, the plot takes a different course. The subsequent quiz refers to the content of the film by asking for offender characteristics, progression of events, and optimal bystander behavior. At the end, the viewer receives feedback and a score as a result of his decisions.
Experimental Design:
We conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) by randomly assigning the participants into two treatment groups and two control groups. The treatment groups participate in the interactive film and the subsequent quiz. The control groups receive no treatment (TBD). The two treatment groups (and the two control groups) respectively differ in the way that two major outcomes are measured. Thereby we want to control for priming effects.
Data Collection:
We draw a random sample of 1,600 observations from a pool that is representative of the German working population. We randomly assign the observation units into the four groups as described above. Data collection takes place via online survey at three points in time: directly after treatment and two follow-ups, 2-weeks and 8-weeks post-intervention.
For the follow-up survey, we send the respondents reminders via e-mail. To ensure compliance with the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), we technically and organizationally separate survey data from (personal) contact data.
Outcomes:
To assess the success of the intervention, we select outcome variables that are informative about whether the intervention is able to increase the willingness to intervene and convey behaviors for safe and effective intervention. As primary outcomes, we thus use bystander attitudes and bystander efficacy. Additionally, we use the willingness to donate for victims of violence as an incentivized outcome that approximates actual bystander helping behavior.
To further pin down the importance of different channels, we use secondary outcome variables. The survey questionnaire permits the investigation of various explanations including the barriers to intervention (detection, interpretation, assumption of responsibility, and perception of subjective intervention skills) and the parameters of the Reasoned Action Approach (attitudes, social pressure, and perceived control).
|
After
The bystander intervention program is provided online on a proprietary website. It consists of (1) an interactive film and (2) a subsequent quiz. Both the film and the quiz follow the gamification approach by using game principles and design elements. First, the interactive film puts the user in the position of a witness who observes a potentially violent situation. After each sequence of the film, a pop-up window asks the user to choose one of two options for action. Depending on these choices, the plot of the film takes a different course. At the end of the film, the user receives feedback containing an assessment of his decisions, recommendations for optimal behavior in a similar situation, and a score.
Second, the subsequent quiz consists of six questions, each relating to the content of the film. For example, the user is asked for offender characteristics and progression of events. After each question, the user receives immediate feedback containing an assessment of his answer, the correct answer, and a score. At the end of the quiz, the viewer receives a final feedback containing an assessment of his choices and a total score.
|
|
Field
Intervention Start Date
|
Before
May 06, 2020
|
After
May 12, 2020
|
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
July 16, 2020
|
After
July 31, 2020
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
Bystander attitudes;
Bystander efficacy;
Bystander behavior (incentivized)
|
After
1) Willingness to intervene;
2) Actual donation to victim support
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
|
After
1) As with most bystander intervention programs, the intervention in analysis aims to increase the participants’ willingness to intervene in situations with a high risk of violence to occur. We thus use the willingness to intervene as our first primary outcome. We measure the willingness to intervene using a set of items each reflecting a specific bystander helping behavior. Respondents are asked for their likelihood to engage in these helping behaviors on a 7-point scale.
2) The final aim of the intervention is to instigate actual behavior. However, due to ethical and organizational constraints, we cannot observe actual bystander helping behavior. As our second primary outcome, we thus use an incentivized measure to approximate actual behavior. This measure is the actual donation to victim support. Respondents receive a compensation for participating in our experiment. At the end, they are asked, which share of their compensation they are willing to donate on a scale from zero to 100%, with 10% increments.
The average effect allows for a general assessment of the policy. To consider potential effect heterogeneity, we consider age, gender, family and socio-economic status as well as living in urban versus rural areas as subgroup categories that can speak to the policy goal of violence prevention.
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT).
|
After
We conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) randomly assigning the participants into two treatment groups and two control groups. The treatment groups participate in the interactive film and the subsequent quiz. The control groups receive no treatment. The two treatment groups (and the two control groups) respectively differ in the way that the first primary outcome (i.e. willingness to intervene) is measured. Thereby we want to control for priming effects.
|
|
Field
Randomization Method
|
Before
Randomization done if office by a computer.
|
After
Randomization done in office by a computer.
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
A. Barriers to intervention:
Detection,
Interpretation,
Responsibility,
Perceived ability.
B. Reasoned Action Approach:
Attitudes,
Perceived norms,
Perceived behavioral control,
Behavioral intention.
C. Further Correlates of Bystander Behavior/ Civic Courage:
Acceptance of negative social consequences,
Empathy,
Anticipated guilt,
Indignation.
|
After
1) Bystander efficacy;
2) Barriers to intervention (Detection, interpretation, assumption of responsibility, perception of skills, acceptance of negative social consequences, empathy, indignation, anticipated guilt);
3) Parameters of the Reasoned Action Approach (Behavioral intention, attitudes, perceived norms, perceived control)
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
|
After
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.
|