Application of Self-Determination Theory to Bystander Intervention Programs

Introduction:Interpersonal violence (e.g., sexual assault, stalking, dating/domestic violence) continues to be an issue in institutional settings such as universities and the military, and institutions are consistently being held to a higher level of responsibility for IPV. Most research has focused on individual-level factors affecting IPV, but most individual-level risk and protective factors for IPV are in place prior to institutional membership. Implementation of bystander intervention programs has been suggested as an institution-level protective factor for IPV, but research is limited about the functional mechanisms and effectiveness of these programs. Specifically, a clear theoretical foundation to guide program development has not been extensively tested. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is a theory of motivation that has been used to explain multiple health-related behaviors. The purpose of this research was to explore the applicability of SDT as a theoretical foundation for bystander intervention research and program development.

Methods:Measures assessing core SDT constructs of motivation, perceived self-competence, and connection to the institutional community were adapted to address IPV and administered in an electronic survey along with measures to assess IPV intervention. Surveys were sent to 6000 randomly selected undergraduate students at a large, public university in the Pacific Northwest and 624 responded (response rate = 10.4%). 

Results: A logistic regression analysis was conducted to predict bystander intervention in IPV using motivation, self-competence, and connection to community as predictors. A test of the full model against a constant only model was statistically significant, indicating the combined predictors reliably predicted bystander intervention (chi square = 16.358, p = .001, df = 3, Nagelkerke’s R² = .063). Overall success of predicting IPV intervention was 60.7% (55.6% for taking action and 65.2% for not). The Wald criterion showed connection to community as the only significant predictor of IPV intervention (p = .014); in the full model, motivation (p = .058) and self-competence (p= .609) were non-significant. 

Conclusions: SDT may be a good theoretical foundation for examining bystander intervention programs as an institutional protective factor for IPV. Although only one SDT construct was a significant predictor in the model tested, independent t-tests showed all three, core SDT constructs were significantly related to IPV intervention (p = .000). Additionally, the strong correlation between the three SDT constructs (p = .000), indicated problems with multicolinearity. More research is needed to better define the relationship between SDT constructs and IPV intervention.