University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Understanding the reporting behavior of international college student bystanders in sexual assault situations

(USC Thesis Other)

Understanding the reporting behavior of international college student bystanders in sexual assault situations

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

UNDERSTANDING THE REPORTING BEHAVIOR OF
INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENT BYSTANDERS
IN SEXUAL ASSAULT SITUATIONS

by
Dori Lyn Hirata Fujimori

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2010

Copyright 2010 Dori Lyn Hirata Fujimori

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This manuscript reflects the kindness of many. With gratitude, I acknowledge
those who took this challenging and rewarding journey with me. Their collective
encouragement and expertise have sustained me when the mountain seemed too difficult
to scale, which was most of the time. Indeed, I have stretched farther than I ever
imagined possible.
To my parents -- the late Stanward and Lilly Hirata -- as my very first teachers,
you gave me a “blue sky” for learning, creating, and growing. You also provided a
lifetime of gentle guidance that has motivated me to seek new experiences, act with
integrity, proceed with disciplined effort, stick when circumstances get rough, and
conquer with a positive attitude. I continue to miss you both dearly, but I know that you
have been with me every step of the way. To my husband, Jay – you have always
celebrated my successes and embraced my dreams as your own. You have lightened my
heavy load with your sense of humor, insights, and thoughtfulness. To my daughter,
Lindsey – thank you for cheering me on and for helping me to maintain my perspective.
I hope you will continue to love learning as much as I do and will be enriched by learning
communities that are fun, challenging, and safe. To my sister, Kelli; my brother-in-law
Darren; the Fujimoris; and the Yamamotos – thank you for the delicious meals and for
helping me with childcare during my many hours of study. To all of my relatives and
friends whom I am unable to mention individually – I truly appreciate your
encouragement and good wishes.

iii
To my dissertation committee – Doctors Melora Sundt, Mary Andres, and
Dominic Brewer – thank you for sharing your time and expertise, and for helping me
navigate the dissertation process.
To Dr. Blair Odo and my colleagues and friends at JAIMS – your assistance and
encouragement have meant the world to me.
Lastly, to the 2007 Hawaii Cohort – I could not have asked for a better bunch of
people with whom to learn. Special thanks to my Team Melora dissertation partners for
your invaluable support. Despite the gravity of our team’s school violence theme,
working with each of you has been a pleasure.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................... vii
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................ viii
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY...........................................................1
Introduction.............................................................................................................1
Background of the Problem ....................................................................................2
Reasons for Not Reporting..................................................................................2
Consequences of Underreporting .......................................................................3
Reporting by Bystanders in Sexual Assault Situations .......................................4
International Students as Bystanders..................................................................6
Statement of the Problem........................................................................................7
Purpose of the Study ...............................................................................................9
Research Questions.................................................................................................9
Methodology.........................................................................................................11
Assumptions..........................................................................................................12
Limitations ............................................................................................................12
Delimitations.........................................................................................................13
Definition of Terms...............................................................................................13
Organization of the Study .....................................................................................14
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................15
Theoretical Frameworks .......................................................................................16
Bystander Behavior Framework.......................................................................16
Hofstede’s Cultural Values Framework ...........................................................19
Theories on Counseling International Students................................................23
Reasons for Non-Reporting ..................................................................................25
Barriers to Victim Reporting ............................................................................26
Barriers to Bystander Reporting.......................................................................30
Bystanders in Sexual Assault Situations ...........................................................32
Variables Affecting Bystander Responses............................................................34
Bystander Awareness of Sexual Assault ...........................................................34
Prior Experience as a Victim............................................................................37
Variables Affecting Bystander Reporting by International Student Sojourners...38
Country of Origin and Cultural Identification..................................................38
Gender...............................................................................................................43
English Language Proficiency..........................................................................44
Social Support...................................................................................................45
Intention to Return Home..................................................................................47
Length of Time in the United States..................................................................48

v
Help-seeking Behaviors and Sexual Assault Awareness ..................................49
Conclusions...........................................................................................................51
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ......................................................54
Introduction...........................................................................................................54
Research Questions...............................................................................................54
Research Design....................................................................................................55
Population and Sample.....................................................................................56
Instrumentation.................................................................................................57
Data Collection.................................................................................................63
Data Analysis....................................................................................................64
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ............................................................66
Introduction...........................................................................................................66
Research Questions and Results ...........................................................................68
Findings Related to Research Question 1: What Are the Characteristics
of International College Student Bystanders Who Report and Who Do
Not Report in Sexual Assault Situations According to Gender, Country
of Origin, Degree of Cultural Identification, Length of Time in the
United States, English Language Proficiency, Social Support, Experience
as a Victim of Violence, Sexual Assault Awareness, and Intention to
Return Home? ...................................................................................................68
Findings Related to Research Question 2: To What Extent Do Gender,
Country of Origin, Degree of Cultural Identification, Length of Time
in the United States, English Language Proficiency, Social Support,
Sexual Assault Awareness, Experience as a Victim, and Intention to
Return Home Predict International Students’ Reporting Behavior in
Sexual Assault Situations? ................................................................................77
Findings Related to Research Question 3: What Cultural, Institutional
or Relationship Factors Do International College Student Bystanders
Perceive as Being Facilitators or Barriers to Their Reporting in Sexual
Assault Situations?............................................................................................79
Summary...............................................................................................................84
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................89
Summary of Findings............................................................................................89
Findings Related to Research Questions 1 and 2 .............................................89
Findings Related to Research Question 3.........................................................95
Implications for Practice.......................................................................................98
Limitations ..........................................................................................................101
Future Research ..................................................................................................103
Conclusion ..........................................................................................................104
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................106

vi
APPENDIX A: Survey of International Student Bystanders in Sexual Assault
Situations.................................................................................................................116
APPENDIX B: Recruitment Email Message from School Administrators............126
APPENDIX C: Table of Responses by Gender, Country of Origin,
Degree of Cultural Identification, Time in the United States, and
English Language Proficiency, Social Support, Experience as a Victim
of Violence. Sexual Assault Awareness, and Intention to Return Home ...............129
APPENDIX D: Descriptions of Variables Used to Analyze the Survey of
International Student Bystanders for this Study .....................................................131

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Bystander Reporting Composite Scores by Cultural Identification
Composite Groups .........................................................................................72

Table 2 Summary of Regression Analysis for International College
Student Variables Predicting Reporting Behavior in Sexual
Assault Situations...........................................................................................78

Table 3 Facilitators to Bystander Reporting in Sexual Assault Situations:
Percentages and Mean Scores of Perceptions of International
Students..........................................................................................................81

Table 4 Barriers to Bystander Reporting in Sexual Assault Situations:
Percentages and Mean Scores of Perceptions of International
Students..........................................................................................................82

Table 5 Bystander Relationship to the Victim and Perpetrator in
Reporting: Percentages and Mean Scores of Perceptions of
International Students....................................................................................83

Table 6 Responses by Gender, Country of Origin, Degree of Cultural
Identification, Time in the United States, English Language
Proficiency, Social Support, Experience as a Victim of Violence,
Sexual Assault Awareness, and Intention to Return Home..........................129

Table 7 Descriptions of Variables Used to Analyze the Survey of
International Student Bystanders for this Study ..........................................131

viii
ABSTRACT
This study examined international college students at two institutions of higher
education – a large research institution and a non-traditional management institution, with
a majority of the sample being alumni from the latter. The purpose of the study was to
provide data on the bystander characteristics and experiences of international college
students in sexual assault situations.
A web-based survey was used to collect data from both institutions. Data were
analyzed with quantitative methods. The analyses showed that about half the sample
intervened correctly in sexual assault situations, although the majority of the participants
were unclear about which reporting actions were helpful and which were not. Reporting
behavior differed significantly by country groupings and by cultural identification. The
majority of the sample studied in the United States for less than a year, and significantly
more non-reporters studied in the United States for less than a year. Most of the
participants indicated high levels of perceived English proficiency. About a fourth of the
sample attended a sexual assault awareness program or utilized a counseling service. The
most important facilitator to reporting was the option to report anonymously, followed by
the ability of the participants to communicate the incident of sexual assault. The most
influential barriers to reporting were the risks of personal harm and being negatively
perceived by others. The most influential relationship facilitators to reporting were the
participant being a friend or an acquaintance of the victim.

1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The reality of threats to personal safety stands in stark contrast to the idyllic
notion of college as a place for student nurturance and growth. College years are a time
for “students and other adults to make meaning of their experiences” (Wilson & Wolf
Wendel, 2005). All too frequently, however, these developmental meaning-making
experiences of college students are derailed by sexual victimization (Fisher, Cullen, &
Turner, 2000). Broadly defined, sexual assault is an act of coercion “in which one party
uses verbal or physical means (including administering drugs or alcohol to the other party
either with or without her consent) to obtain sexual activity” (Adams-Curtis & Forbes,
2004, p. 99). Sexual assault on college campuses ranges from unwanted sexual contact
and threats of coercion to attempted and completed rape (Baum & Klaus, 2005). While
men are also victims of sexual assault, the rate of sexual victimization of college women
is over four times that of men (Baum & Klaus, 2005). As a growing population on U.S.
college campuses (Institute of International Education, 2008a), international students –
both male and female – are potential bystanders who can prevent the occurrence of sexual
assaults or who can aid female sexual assault victims. This study focuses on the
reporting experiences and characteristics of international college students who are
bystanders in sexual assault situations.

2
Background of the Problem
A national study using a randomized sample of 4,446 college women estimated
that in a given year nearly 5% of college women experience rape or attempted rape, and
about 20-25% of college women will be raped during their college careers (Fisher et al.,
2000). With 22% of all rape victims falling between the ages of 18 and 24 (California
Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 2004) and with college women more likely to be raped
than women of the same age who do not attend college, the college years represent a
vulnerable time for women (Sampson, 2003).
Exacerbating this problem is the reporting rate. Campus sexual assaults go
largely unreported (Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003; Koss, Gidcyz, & Wisniewski,
1987; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). According to a landmark study on rape in higher
education based on a national sample (Koss, Gidcyz, & Wisniewski, 1987), a mere 5% of
college students who were raped reported their experiences to the police. Recent studies
have concurred that the majority of sexual assaults are not reported to formal authorities,
such as police or campus authorities (Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003; Tjaden &
Thoennes, 2000).
Reasons for Not Reporting
College women refrain from formally reporting incidences of sexual assault for a
variety of reasons, some of which stem from characteristics related to the incident,
victim, offender, or social context. For example, some victims opt not to report because
of feelings of shame, guilt, or embarrassment, or concerns about confidentiality (Sable,
Danis, Mauzy, & Gallagher, 2006). Others fear retaliation, fear a loss of control or

3
privacy, or doubt that the police can help (California Coalition Against Sexual Assault,
2004; Fisher et al., 2003). Studies also suggest that most victims refrain from reporting
their experiences in part because they do not consider themselves a victim of rape,
despite meeting the legal definitions of rape (Fisher et al., 2003; Karjane, Fisher, &
Cullen, 2002).
College women also refrain from reporting based on opportunities and options to
report their victimization. For example, Karjane et al. (2002) found that any policy or
procedure that removes a victim’s ability to make an informed choice about reporting and
activating the adjudication process or does not ensure confidentiality in “how information
regarding the student’s victimization will circulate” (p. 85) serves as a barrier to
reporting. Such policies include mandatory reporting without an option of remaining
anonymous (Karjane et al., 2002).
Consequences of Underreporting
The underreporting of sexual assault masks the problems on campuses and
adversely impacts the prevention, response, and reporting efforts provided to students by
colleges (Karjane et al., 2002) and by the criminal justice and legal systems (Abarbanel,
2000; Fisher et al., 2003). For example, from the perspective of law enforcement, non-
reporting prevents the perpetrator’s arrest, enables the potential for perpetrator
recidivism, restricts the assistance the criminal justice system provides to the victim, and
results in the use of inaccurate data for planning prevention programs and intervention
strategies (Abarbanel, 2000; Fisher et al., 2003).

4
At the institutional level, the underreporting of sexual assault to campus
authorities impedes the adjudication process, the development of policies and
programming to assist students, and the institution’s ability to accurately comply with
federal legislation (Karjane et al., 2002; Sable et al., 2006). Under the federal Clery Act,
for example, institutions of higher education that receive federal funding must annually
report incidents of sexual violence (Carter, 2003).
From a societal perspective, sexual assault underreporting has created doubts that
a rape crisis on college campuses actually exists (H. MacDonald, 2008, February 24),
which is a proposition that concerns violence prevention advocates who fear further
decreases in reporting by victims and increases of “public blaming and shaming of the
courageous victims that do come forward” (Peace Over Violence, 2008, p. 5).
For the victim, in addition to causing physical and psychological harm, a sexual
assault and its aftermath can negatively impact a victim’s academic persistence. For
example, being raped while in college is a leading reason women do not resume their
studies after their first semester (Peace Over Violence, 2008). Also, one study (Hunt,
2004) found that, among its small number of participants, half of the women who decided
to report their victimization left the college or dropped out of school.
Reporting by Bystanders in Sexual Assault Situations
Although the onus of formally reporting a sexual assault is typically placed on the
victim, bystanders to an assault can respond by intervening to prevent an assault or by
assisting a victim who discloses an assault to them (Banyard, Eckstein, & Moynihan,
2009). Research has shown that the informal reporting of sexual assault by victims to

5
bystanders such as friends or family members is prevalent (Fisher et al., 2003; Karjane et
al., 2002). Fisher et al. (2003) found that despite the underreporting of incidences of
sexual assault to police and campus authorities, 70% of those surveyed reported the
incident informally to someone else, who was most often a friend (87.9%). Moreover,
Fisher et al. (2003) found that all the incidents reported to police and all the incidents
reported to campus authorities were also reported to someone else. Although the study
by Fisher et al. (2003) does not address the type of influence friends have on the victims’
decisions to report, the high rate of informal reporting, and the link between informal and
formal reporting suggest that bystanders play an important role in facilitating formal
reporting. Specifically, because most victims eschew the current formal reporting system
and because the impact of sexual assault can be severe, an examination of the informal
reporting process – that is, who victims informally tell and how to increase the likelihood
that the bystander will help the victims come forward – is critical for marshalling all
available resources to get victims the help they need.
In addition to providing support to victims in the aftermath of a sexual assault,
bystanders can interrupt a situation that could lead to an assault or denounce social norms
that support sexual violence (Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante, 2007). Bystander
interventions, typically studied in emergency situations (Latané & Darley, 1970), have
recently been used for the purposes of preventing a sexual assault (Banyard et al., 2007;
Berkowitz, 2008). But, research has shown that pro-social bystander action is often
inhibited by the presence of others (Berkowitz, 2008; Latané & Darley, 1970; Latané &
Nida, 1981) and that intervening when there is a threat of harm or actual harm carries

6
high costs and few benefits for the bystander, all of which “pressures” bystanders to
ignore, misperceive, or underestimate their responsibility for intervening (Latané &
Darley, 1970).
International Students as Bystanders
For some students, reporting may be further complicated by their home culture’s
views about sex, sexual violence, help-seeking, and problem-solving. This tension
between the home culture and host culture may be particularly salient for international
student sojourners, whom Church (1982) defines as visitors to a new culture on a short-
term basis.
In the context of reporting a sexual assault, international college student
bystanders must navigate challenges that most of their domestic counterparts do not.
That is, international college students are an underserved college population who must
contend not only with similar problems encountered by college students in general but
also with challenges that result from being sojourners (Pedersen, 1991). These
challenges include language barriers, cultural adjustment issues, and racial discrimination
(Hechanova-Alampay, Beehr, Christiansen, & Van Horn, 2002; Pines, Zaidman, Wang,
Chengbing, & Ping, 2003; S. Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007; Yeh & Inose, 2003). Further,
research on counseling international student sojourners and on the culture-related
characteristics of the sojourner suggests that these challenges correlate to international
students being less inclined to seek help themselves, or to advise others to seek help from
campus counseling services (Yoon & Jepsen, 2008) or from police than their American
counterparts (Yamawaki, 2007).

7
As potential bystanders to sexual assault, the reporting behavior of international
college students warrants attention, given the growth and impact of this group on college
campuses. For example, during 2007-2008, 623,805 international students studied at
colleges and universities in the United States, constituting about 3.5% of total U.S. higher
education enrollment and representing a 7% growth over the prior year (Institute of
International Education, 2008a). Also, international students annually contribute over
$15 billion to the U.S. economy in tuition, fees, and living expenses (Institute of
International Education, 2008a). Further, a growing proportion of international students
studying in the United States are female (44.4% in 2005-2006), compared to 30 years ago
when only a third of all international college students were female (Institute of
International Education, 2006) -- a relevant statistic because the majority of rape victims
are women (Abarbanel, 2000; Baum & Klaus, 2005).
Statement of the Problem
Given the extensive underreporting by victims of sexual assault on college
campuses (Fisher et al., 2003) and the promising potential for bystanders to bolster
reporting in sexual assault situations, researchers have focused on reducing bystander
unresponsiveness in sexual assault situations on college campuses since the early 2000s
(Banyard et al., 2009; Banyard et al., 2007; Berkowitz, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008; Foubert
& Newberry, 2006; Yamawaki, 2007). Further, based on samples of American students
(Banyard et al., 2007; Berkowitz, 2006), such studies have found that bystander behavior
is predicated on the sharing of common social norms, with a focus on the number of

8
people present in a situation (Berkowitz, 2008; Latané & Darley, 1970; Latané & Nida,
1981) as well as social group membership (Levine, Cassidy, Brazier, & Reicher, 2002).
However, this research may not apply to international student bystanders, whose
reporting behavior may be based on an additional and presumably different set of norms
– the social norms of their home country. Norms rooted in Asian culture, for example,
influence the attitudes and behavioral patterns of international students in seeking help
(Mori, 2000; Pines et al., 2003; Yamawaki, 2007), in remaining silent about sex or
violence (Dussich, 2001; Luo, 2000; Pines et al., 2003), in avoiding confrontation
(Dussich, 2001), and in conceptualizing the culpability of victims in a sexual assault (J.
Lee, Pomeroy, Yoo, & Rheinboldt, 2005; Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 1999; Yamawaki, 2007).
Despite not focusing directly on reporting in sexual assault situations, these studies on
cultural norms suggest that for international student bystanders the context surrounding
reporting can be complicated by dissimilar home-country norms.
Furthermore, the absence of reporting by international students in sexual assault
situations is symptomatic of the failure of institutions to understand and adapt to meet the
diverse needs of these students. For example, reporting by international students in
sexual assault situations on U.S. college campuses has not been systematically studied.
Studies that examined variables relevant to international students such as race and
ethnicity (Fisher et al., 2003) and perceived cultural and language barriers to obtaining
help (Sable et al., 2006) were limited to samples of college student victims who were
predominantly White and American. Also, a study that investigated college students’
attitudes toward rape did not disaggregate results by nationality (J. Lee et al., 2005). As

9
Pedersen (1991) notes, the growth and diversity of international students on college
campuses have outpaced the ability of institutions to serve this diverse group. Thus, a
lack of understanding of the characteristics of international student bystanders who report
in sexual assault situations and the specific cultural and institutional barriers to reporting
they encounter further inhibits efforts by U.S. institutions of higher education to
effectively serve this burgeoning population.
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to expand the information about international college student
bystanders in sexual assault situations on U.S. college campuses. More specifically, this
study sought to describe characteristics of international college students who report in
sexual assault situations as well as those who opt not to report. This study also examined
the extent to which variables relevant to international college student bystanders
predicted their reporting behavior in sexual assault situations. Lastly, this study aimed to
identify the factors that international college student bystanders studying in the United
States consider when deciding whether to report a sexual assault.
Research Questions
This study attempts to answer the following research questions:
Research Question 1. What are the characteristics of international college student
bystanders who report and who do not report in sexual assault situations according to
gender, country of origin, degree of cultural identification, length of time in the United
States, English language proficiency, social support, experience as a victim of violence,
sexual assault awareness, and intention to return home?

10
Research Question 2. To what extent do international students’ gender, country of
origin, degree of cultural identification, length of time in the United States, English
language proficiency, social support, experience as a victim of violence, sexual assault
awareness, and intention to return home predict their reporting behavior in sexual assault
situations?
Research Question 3. What cultural, institutional, or relationship factors do
international college student bystanders perceive as being facilitators or barriers to their
reporting in sexual assault situations?
Significance of the Study
The vulnerability of college women and their subsequent underreporting hold
policy and programming implications for college administrators, who must concurrently
work to prevent and respond to incidents of campus sexual assaults (Karjane et al., 2002).
Because there has been little research on the characteristics of international college
students who report a sexual assault, this study will contribute to advancing knowledge
and theory in both sexual violence prevention and in the counseling and support for
victims and bystanders during the aftermath of an assault. Specifically, the findings from
this study may enable college administrators to identify and address specific cultural and
institutional barriers to reporting that international college students encounter.
Typically under the purview of the vice president for Student Affairs, offices
serving international students might use findings to improve the experience of
international students. For example, the vice president might use the results of this study
take actionable steps to improve sexual assault outreach, allocating limited resources

11
accordingly. School administrators have a vested interest in the success of international
students because, as Andrade (2009) argues, given the demands of globalization,
international students can offer domestic students different perspectives and equip them
with the skills for successfully interacting with those from different from themselves.
Further, “international students contribute on a practical level by teaching undergraduate
classes, aiding research, developing new knowledge, and filling employment needs in the
United States, particularly in scientific fields at top research universities” (Andrade,
2009, pp. 13-14). Thus, adequate support of the international student population also
indirectly supports the larger campus community and academia in general.
Because this study examines possible differences between international students
based on factors such as gender, country of origin, degree of cultural identification,
length of time in the United States, English language proficiency, and sexual assault
awareness, the findings of this study may assist campus administrators in designing
reporting policies and protocols as well as sexual assault education materials and
messages that are appropriate and effective for use by subgroups of international
students.
Methodology
This study is a quantitative, non-experimental descriptive analysis of the
characteristics and perceptions of international college students who are bystanders in
sexual assault situations. The Survey of International Student Bystanders in Sexual
Assault Situations (Appendix A) was used to query the international student participants.
The survey, consisting of 45 items adapted from several studies, was pilot-tested on a

12
group of 15 international students from various countries to obtain data confirming clarity
and meaning of the survey items. This study uses a convenience sample from two
institutions -- a large research institute with the largest population of international
students in the nation (Institute of International Education, 2008a), and a private post-
baccalaureate management institute. To examine the relationships between the
independent variables and dependent variable, this study utilized SPSS to perform Chi-
square tests, t-tests for independent samples, and analyses of variance (ANOVA),
resulting in descriptive statistics that include frequencies, means, and standard deviations
of variables. This study also used a multiple linear regression to examine the extent to
which the independent variables predict reporting behavior.
Assumptions
This study assumes that participants will respond honestly to the survey
instrument. It also assumes that participants have adequate English proficiency to
complete the survey instrument. Further, it is assumed that the survey instrument will
contain adequate reliability and validity to allow for inferences to be drawn on the
perceptions, behaviors, and characteristics of international college student bystanders.
Limitations
The subject of reporting in sexual assault situations poses a limitation as it
involves personal and threatening content. However, the survey instrument was
developed to minimize this threat to participants and to minimize over-reporting of
socially desirable responses in response to perceived threat. Another limitation is that
this survey-based quantitative study will yield data that is correlational instead of

13
causational. Further, the recruitment and convenience sampling of participants are also
limitations. The participants in this study volunteered to participate, and they may not be
representative of international students at other colleges and universities.
Delimitations
This study focuses on sexual assault situations involving women victims,
although study participants are both male and female. Further, this study only focuses on
factors influencing reporting; the background characteristics of gender, country of origin,
degree of cultural identification, length of time in the United States, and English language
proficiency; and the participants’ social support, sexual assault awareness, experience as
a victim, and intention to return home. Only participants who fully complete the survey
will be included in the study.
Definition of Terms
1. Bystander – an observer to an event; one who has the ability to intervene in
emergency and non-emergency situations.
2. Domestic student – a student enrolled at an institution of higher education in the
United States who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
3. International student – a student enrolled at an institution of higher education in the
United States who is not a U.S. citizen, permanent resident, or refugee, and who may
hold a temporary visa (Institute of International Education, 2008b)
4. Intervention – the act of intervening to assist a victim
5. Reporting – a type of intervention a bystander would take

14
6. Sexual assault – an act of coercion in which verbal or physical means are used by one
party obtain sexual activity from another (Adams-Curtis & Forbes, 2004)
7. Sojourner – a visitor to a new culture on a short-term basis (Church, 1982)
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of the study has presented the introduction, the background of the
problem, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the questions to be
answered, the significance of the study, a brief description of the methodology, the
assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and the definitions of terms.
Chapter 2 is a review of the literature relevant to this study. Theoretical
frameworks and reasons for non-reporting in sexual assault situations are presented, with
an overview of barriers to reporting by both victims and bystanders. This leads to a
discussion of bystanders in sexual assault situations followed by a discussion of the social
norms and unique issues pertaining to international student bystanders.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology that will be used in the study, including the
research design, population, and sampling procedure. The survey instrument and its
development are discussed along with information on validity and reliability. The
chapter then describes the procedures for data collection and analysis.
Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study. Chapter 5 discusses and analyzes the
results, presenting the conclusions and recommendations for further research.

15
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
College women are at high risk for sexual assault, with estimates that 20-25% will
be raped during their college career (Fisher et al., 2000), yet only about 5% of victims
report the assault to formal authorities (Fisher et al., 2003; Koss et al., 1987; Tjaden &
Thoennes, 2000). As discussed in Chapter 1, bystanders can play an important role in
reducing the underreporting of sexual assault (Banyard et al., 2009; Banyard et al., 2007;
Berkowitz, 2006), despite the general tendency of bystanders to be inhibited by the
presence of others (Berkowitz, 2008; Latané & Darley, 1970; Latané & Nida, 1981). As
a growing but underserved population on U.S. college campuses (Institute of
International Education, 2008a; Pedersen, 1991), international students are among this
potential pool of bystanders, whose reporting behavior in sexual assault situations must
be better understood. For this purpose, this dissertation focuses on understanding the
descriptive characteristics of international college students who report as well as on the
factors that influence their decision to report.
This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the literature beginning with
theoretical frameworks used to explain general bystander behavior and the bystander
behavior of international students. Next, the review will discuss the reasons for non-
reporting by victims in sexual assault situations and by bystanders in general emergency
situations. Then, research on bystander behavior in sexual assault situations is presented.
To understand the bystander behavior of international college students, this chapter
reviews the influence of culture on social norms as well as the challenges related to the

16
counseling of international college students that appear relevant to bystander reporting.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications and suggestions for further
research.
Theoretical Frameworks
This review draws on several theories to elucidate and connect discrete bodies of
literature on bystander behavior, international students, and sexual victimization, each of
which pertains to this dissertation’s topic. The theories that contribute in particular to the
understanding of international student bystanders in sexual assault situations are (a)
Latané’s and Darley’s bystander behavior framework, (b) Hofstede’s cultural values
framework, and (c) international student adjustment theories.
Bystander Behavior Framework
Conceptualized by Latané and Darley (1970) and based on a decision model, the
bystander behavior framework holds that for action to be taken, the bystander must
progress through a sequence of stages. If at any stage the bystander decides not to do
something about the situation, advancement to the next stage, and ultimately action, will
not occur (Latané & Darley, 1970). The stages that bystanders must progress through
include (a) noticing the event, (b) interpreting and defining the situation as a problem, (c)
feeling responsible for doing something about the situation, (d) choosing a course of
action and possessing the skills to act, and (e) taking action (Berkowitz, 2008; Latané &
Darley, 1970). According to Latané and Darley (1970), such decisions are necessary
because situations requiring intervention are often ambiguous.

17
While the stages are presented in linear sequence, Latané and Darley (1970)
suggest that the bystander’s commitment to the decision at each stage is not finalized
until he or she decides to act. That is, the bystander can move back and forth between
decision points (Latané & Darley, 1970), particularly as the bystander weighs the costs
and benefits to taking action. Also, the decision at any stage can become blocked if the
bystander remains “confused and conflicted” (Latané & Darley, 1970, p. 122). However,
Latané, Darley, and their associates (Latané & Darley, 1970) found that delayed action
often led to inaction since bystanders either responded early or not at all.
Banyard et al. (2007) identified constructs of bystander attitudes and behavior that
connect to this bystander framework: (a) knowledge and attitudes about sexual violence,
(b) willingness to help, (c) bystander self-efficacy, and (d) decisional balance. For
example, a bystander’s knowledge and attitudes about sexual violence influence whether
an event is noticed or is interpreted as a problem, and a bystander’s willingness to help
propels the bystander through all stages. Likewise, weighing the pros and cons of
intervening (decisional balance) and self-efficacy influences whether bystanders will
choose a course of action and act.
Historically studied in emergency situations (Latané & Darley, 1970), bystander
approaches have been used to address health and social justice issues (Berkowitz, 2003).
For example, situated within the unresponsive bystander framework, social norms theory
asserts that individuals incorrectly perceive the attitudes and beliefs about the behavior of
others, and consequently, individuals adjust their behavior to conform to the incorrect
norm (Berkowitz, 2004). Social norms theory has been used for reducing alcohol and

18
tobacco use in college populations, and has also been applied to other issues of violence
and social justice, including gambling, bullying, and homophobia (Berkowitz, 2005).
Most recently, social norms approaches have been used in sexual violence prevention by
focusing on broader community norms and attitudes (Banyard et al., 2007; Berkowitz,
2008; Fabiano, Perkins, Berkowitz, Linkenbach, & Stark, 2003).
The bystander framework is useful for understanding bystander reasoning and
subsequent behavior; however, while the framework focuses on the number of bystanders
present, it fails to address who bystanders or victims are believed to be within a group
(Levine et al., 2002). Levine et al. (2002) found that bystanders are influential only if
they are perceived as an in-group member and that bystanders are likely to help victims
who are described as in-group as opposed to out-group members. Similarly, in a critique
of social norms theory, which assumes that the peer group comprises the entire student
body, a national study on college drinking (Wechsler et al., 2003) found that the
immediate peer group exerts a much stronger influence on individual behavior than the
larger peer group. Further, the many studies focusing on bystander behavior in general
and bystander behavior in sexual assault situations have utilized samples primarily
comprising Americans and consequently do not describe the characteristics of
international college student bystanders who report, nor do such studies discuss barriers
to reporting experienced by this population. For this purpose, Hofstede’s cultural values
framework is useful for exploring the impact of culture on reporting behavior.

19
Hofstede’s Cultural Values Framework
With its sociological underpinnings, the concept of culture is ambiguously and
frequently referred to as a “way of life” in a given society (Basirico, Cashion, Eshleman,
& Morgan, 2009). That is, culture refers to the values, beliefs, norms, and ideas of what
is important and unimportant or right or wrong as people interact in a society, with
expectations about how members should behave (Basirico et al., 2009). Behaviors are
considered to be byproducts of culture because they vary among groups as opposed to
being basic, genetic “aspects of human nature” (Basirico et al., 2009, p. 98).
Hofstede’s cultural values framework is useful for understanding the influence
that cultural values have on social norms, which in turn impact bystander behavior. The
concept of culture provides a context for behavior as culture delineates boundaries that
distinguish one group from another (Basirico et al., 2009). According to Hofstede
(2001), culture is the “collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the
members of one human group from another” (p. 9), and societal norms rarely change
from adopting outside values but are instead driven by ecological conditions, such as
hygiene, technology, and economy.
According to Hofstede’s model, the collective level of mental programming is
flanked by mental programming that is “universal” (that which is shared by most, of not
all, human beings, such as biological processes of the human body) and mental
programming that is “individual (that pertaining to the unique personalities of
individuals, even identical twins) (Hofstede, 2001). Hofstede (2001) acknowledges that

20
the distinction between the three levels is blurred and that no consensus exists between
“phenomena” that are culture-specific and that which are universal (Hofstede, 2001).
Moreover, such collective mental programming is unobservable as it takes place
in the mind of individuals (Hofstede, 2001). Instead, a person’s culture is inferred from
his or her words and actions (Hofstede, 2001), contributing to the ambiguity of culture as
a concept. Indeed, culture is applicable to “any human collectivity or category: an
organization, a profession, an age group, an entire gender, or a family” (2001, p. 10).
However, the interdependency of these cultural categories makes it difficult to compare
and contrast such groups (Hofstede, 2001).
Instead, Hofstede operationalizes the concept of culture as “nations or as ethnic or
regional groups within or across nations” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 10). His rationale is that
national societies are the most discrete human groups that exist (Hofstede, 2001).
Despite the cultural heterogeneity of national societies (such as groups in the United
States), groups within these national societies share cultural characteristics that enable
members of the society to distinguish themselves from those outside the group (Hofstede,
2001). Thus, for the purpose of operationalizing culture and relating it to reporting
behavior, this study uses Hofstede’s conceptualization of national culture (Hofstede,
2001).
Widely used in literature on cross-cultural management in organizations, the
cultural values framework is recognized as being among the most influential for
examining issues in cross-cultural settings (Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006). Utilizing
a country-level factor analysis and based on data from 50 countries, Hofstede’s

21
framework classifies each country along five different dimensions (Hofstede, 2001). The
first dimension is individualism-collectivism, which refers to the extent to which
individuals are integrated into groups (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede & Itim International,
2009). The second dimension is power distance, which focuses on the inequality of
societies and refers to the degree to which members of a society accept the unequal
distribution of power (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede & Itim International, 2009). Third, the
uncertainty avoidance dimension indicates the degree to which a society tolerates
ambiguity (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede & Itim International, 2009). Fourth, the
masculinity-femininity dimension refers to a society’s distribution of roles between the
genders, where masculine countries have values that are assertive and competitive, while
feminine countries have values based on caring (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede & Itim
International, 2009). The framework’s fifth dimension is long-term versus short-term
orientation, where the values of thrift and perseverance characterize the long-term
orientation, and values of face-saving, respecting traditions, and fulfilling social
obligations characterize the short-term orientation (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede & Itim
International, 2009).
To measure a person’s cultural values, self-report questionnaires on personal
preferences were used as a proxy for a person’s actions (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).
Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) used questionnaire items that attempted to avoid socially
desirable responses by focusing on what respondents desired for themselves -- virtuous or
not. The preferences selected by the majority in a country were considered to represent
the cultural norm (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Nationality is typically used to classify

22
these cultural differences, given the greater feasibility and expediency of obtaining data
at this level compared to obtaining data from “organic homogeneous societies” (Hofstede
& Hofstede, 2005, p. 19).
In juxtaposing the cultural values of various countries including the United States,
the framework may also extend to differences in the social norms of various countries.
For example, students from countries dissimilar to the United States on any of Hofstede’s
five dimensions can be expected to embrace social norms that are also dissimilar to the
United States and vice versa. Perhaps most pertinent to the discussion of social norms
that influence reporting are the dimensions of individualism-collectivism and
masculinity-femininity as these dimensions relate to the adjustment challenges, incident
interpretations, and help-seeking tendencies of international students, and consequently,
their willingness to help and their self-efficacy as bystanders.
This framework has been criticized for using a single multinational company to
develop conclusions about national cultural values, oversimplifying culture, failing to
conceptualize the dynamism of culture over time, and failing to capture the heterogeneity
within a given culture (Sivakumar & Nakata, 2001). Further, Hofstede’s cultural values
framework highlights differences in values, but the framework has not been explicitly
applied to the situations of international students. Because of these limitations, this
review turns to theories that identify specific issues of international students studying in
the United States.

23
Theories on Counseling International Students
Because bystander actions involve help-seeking behaviors, theories on counseling
international student sojourners in the United States help to further inform the discussion
of international students as bystanders. For example, despite receiving mixed empirical
support, the U-shaped model of cultural adaptation is arguably the most prominent model
of student adjustment (Leong & Chou, 2002). According to this model, adjustment
comprises high points and a low point in a U-type curve that occurs in three stages: (a)
excitement and optimism upon initial entry to the host-culture, (b) depression and
frustration due to conflicts in the host-culture, and (c) confidence and satisfaction upon
adjustment to the host-culture (Leong & Chou, 2002). Although this model may not
apply to all international students, the U-curve model highlights the potential culture
shock that an international student may experience (Leong & Chou, 2002). In terms of
bystander reporting, the student’s decisional balance, willingness to intervene, or
bystander efficacy may be adversely affected due to competing influences from culture
shock. Conversely, this model may also suggest that students at the high points of
adjustment might be more amenable to bystander action.
In a review of literature on student sojourners, Pedersen (1991) asserts that there
is no one cohesive theory on counseling international students, given the different
perspectives, approaches, and diversity of the population. Instead, theories can be
categorized according to those that emphasize “changing the person” and those that
emphasize “changing the situation” (Pedersen, 1991), with both categories requiring
adjustment on the part of the student. Likewise, a review by Leong and Chou (2002)

24
summarized theories on counseling international student sojourners, noting that the
majority of the theories focus predominantly on client variables instead of on the
counselor or on the counseling process.
Moreover, a controversy exists between universalist and culture-specific
approaches for counseling international students. On the one hand, because of the
overwhelming number of cultural subgroups, universalist approaches focus on common
themes across all cultural groups, which individual counselors must then carefully apply
in culturally different situations (Leong & Chou, 2002). In contrast, advocates for
culture-specific approaches assert that for counselors to work effectively with an
international student, they must have specific knowledge about that culture (Leong &
Chou, 2002). This debate is also relevant to crafting social norms approaches for the
prevention of sexual assault. Berkowitz (2003) suggests that for a social norms
intervention to be effective and appropriate for the intended audience, three “cultures”
must be addressed: "the culture of the issue, the culture of the message delivery system,
and the culture of the target population" (p. 262).
An overall weakness of sojourner adjustment theories is that they place the
responsibility for adaptation and coping on the international student. For example, one
model considers adjustment to be a process of learning the characteristics of a new
culture, with the international student learning intercultural communication skills and
ways to adapt to new patterns of behavior (Bochner, 1981). While considered by Leong
and Chou (2002) to be less ethnocentric compared to other theories because it focuses on

25
“learning” instead of on “adjusting,” this model nonetheless places responsibility for
change on the student.
The growth and diversity of international students on college campuses have
outpaced the ability of institutions to serve this diverse group (Pedersen, 1991). Leong
and Chou (2002) concur noting, “given the complexities involved, it is clear that
counselors who work with international students cannot wait for the fruits of scientific
research but instead must muddle through with the existing knowledge base and a great
deal of improvisation” (p. 203). Whereas Hofstede’s cultural values framework suggests
barriers to reporting due to cultural identification, counseling theories build on this
framework with barriers inherent in the host-culture or host-institution.
Reasons for Non-Reporting
Reporting an act of sexual assault requires the victim or the bystander to take
action, in any of a number of ways. For victims, reporting includes filing a police report
or telling a friend (Fisher et al., 2003). For bystanders, reporting takes on a broader
definition that includes any intervention that prevents harm or further harm to a victim,
such as interrupting a situation that could lead to an assault, interrupting an assault in
progress, denouncing social norms that support sexual violence, and providing support to
sexual assault victims (Banyard et al., 2009; Banyard et al., 2007). This section first
discusses the barriers that prevent such reporting by victims, limiting the discussion to
college women who are victimized, and then this section discusses barriers that prevent
reporting by bystanders.

26
Barriers to Victim Reporting
Opportunities and options to report. College women refrain from reporting in
part based on opportunities and options to report their victimization. Karjane et al.’s
(2002) landmark study of 2,438 institutions of higher education examined the issues
pertaining to the institutions’ sexual assault policies, programs, and practices. Mandated
by the U.S. Congress, the study gathered comprehensive data for the first time since the
establishment of the federal legislation now known as the Clery Act (Karjane et al.,
2002). The major limitation of this study is that data about reporting behavior were based
on the perceptions of college administrators and not on the general student population nor
on actual sexual assault victims (Karjane et al., 2002), which would have yielded data
directly from those whose underreporting behavior is being discussed. Nonetheless, the
administrators’ responses still provide useful insight into institution-related policies and
practices that encourage and discourage reporting by sexual assault victims.
For example, Karjane et al. (2002) found that any policy or procedure that (a)
removes a victim’s ability to make an informed choice about reporting and the
adjudication process, or (b) does not ensure confidentiality in “how information regarding
the student’s victimization will circulate” (p. 85) serves as a barrier to reporting. Such
policies include mandatory reporting without an option of remaining anonymous as well
as mandatory reporting where victims are forced to participate in the adjudication process
(Karjane et al., 2002). Likewise, programmatic barriers include programming that
focuses solely on the victim’s responsibility to prevent a sexual assault (Karjane et al.,
2002). In responding to the trauma of the incident, victims often cope with avoidance

27
strategies such as opting out of a likely lengthy campus or criminal justice adjudication
process, and they renew their focus on academics to preserve their original purpose for
attending college (Karjane et al., 2002).
In addition, victims frequently lack knowledge about reporting options, such as
being unaware that reporting the crime is different from beginning the adjudication
process at either the campus or criminal justice level (Karjane et al., 2002). This lack of
information is due in part to the narrow focus of sexual assault response training by many
campuses, with just 40% of surveyed institutions providing such training mainly to
students who serve as residence hall assistants and security personnel (Karjane et al.,
2002).
Policies and protocols are also complicated by the confusion surrounding the legal
definitions of rape, which vary from state to state (Fisher et al., 2000; Koss et al., 1987).
Moreover, no standard institutional definitions for “rape” or “sexual assault” exist
(Karjane et al., 2002). Regardless of the definition used, however, data suggest that most
victims refrain from reporting their experiences in part because they do not define their
experience as a crime, despite the incident meeting legal definitions (Fisher et al., 2003;
Karjane et al., 2002).
In short, barriers to reporting include institutional policies that place the
objectives of the institution and criminal justice system at odds with the victim’s
objectives to heal and regain control (Karjane et al., 2002). Also, policies that do not
provide adequate information to victims about sexual assault or the available reporting
options can impede reporting (Karjane et al., 2002). The barriers related to reporting

28
options are also reflected in the victim’s perceptions of the incident, perpetrator, and
social context, which are discussed next.
Victim perceptions. Barriers to victim reporting include victim perceptions of the
incident, perpetrator, and social context. For example, based on a national study using a
randomized sample of 4,446 college women, Fisher et al. (2003) found that of all the
reasons for non-reporting by victims, incident-related reasons were the most frequent,
with 81.7% stating they did not perceive the incident to be serious enough to report to the
police. Other incident-related reasons for non-reporting included victim perceptions of
whether the perpetrator intended harm (42.1%), concern that the police would not think
the incident serious enough (28.6%), and concern about the inadequacy of proof (23.2%),
particularly in non-serious incidents that did not involve a weapon or did not result in
injury (Fisher et al., 2003). These findings are supported by a qualitative study (Ahrens,
2006) that found that victims face an added burden; a victim who reports must not only
prove the crime occurred, but she must also prove that she had no role in its occurrence.
Likewise, Sable et al. (2006) found that fear of not being believed was one of the main
reasons women did not report an assault. These findings suggest that reporting
victimization to the police is largely affected by the extent to which the victim perceives
that the incident is believable (Fisher et al., 2003; Sable et al., 2006). Another incident-
related barrier to reporting is the use of drugs or alcohol during the incident by the victim,
who fears that the presence of these substances makes her less credible (Abarbanel, 2000;
Fisher et al., 2003), although laws of most states hold that sexual activity with anyone
unable to give consent due to being unconscious or intoxicated is illegal (Abarbanel,

29
2000; Negrusz, Juhascik, & Gaensslen, 2005). Moreover, the existence of a campus
alcohol and drug policy has been found to inhibit reporting by victims who may fear
being in violation of policies that prohibit the use of drugs or alcohol (Karjane et al.,
2002).
Second, the relationship of the victim to the perpetrator is linked to reporting
behavior. Research has shown, for example, that incidents involving friends or
acquaintances were less likely to be reported than incidents involving strangers (Fisher et
al., 2003; Karjane et al., 2002). In cases of acquaintance rape, Karjane et al. (2002)
suggest that victims refrain from defining their experience as a rape because doing so is
tantamount to calling their friend or classmate a “criminal” or “rapist.” Gilligan (1993)
interprets this concern about not wanting to harm someone who has harmed them as a
woman’s moral reasoning based on an ethic of care, which is predicated on nonviolence
and compassion. Further, incidences were less likely to be reported if the victim and
perpetrator were of the same race or ethnicity (Fisher et al., 2003), although this
quantitative study does not provide causational information about this correlation.
Third, barriers that stem from the social context also influence victim reporting
behavior. In their review of literature, Adams-Curtis and Forbes (2004) assert that the
college environment comprises “strong peer pressures for sexual activity, the ritualistic
abuse of alcohol, a culture that objectifies women, and a culture that frequently views
sexual intercourse as an act of masculine conquest” (pp. 91-92). Studies suggest that this
social context drives the victim’s conceptualization of the assault and her role in it, her
definition of what is reportable, and her concern about the consequences of her disclosure

30
(Ahrens, 2006; Fisher et al., 2003; Karjane et al., 2002; Sable et al., 2006). For example,
data suggest that most victims of rape refrain from reporting in part because they do not
consider themselves a victim of rape, despite their victimization meeting legal definitions
(Karjane et al., 2002). Also, victims refrain from formally reporting a sexual assault due
to self-blame (Fisher et al., 2003; Sable et al., 2006). Sable et al. (2006) found that for
females, the feelings of shame, guilt, and embarrassment were the most important
perceived barriers to reporting a sexual assault. Ahrens (2006) suggests that sexual
assault victims internalize “many of the cultural narratives about rape that emphasize the
victim’s culpability” (p. 271).
Barriers related to the social context also include not wanting family or others to
find out about the incident, and fear of retaliation by the perpetrator or other people
(Fisher et al., 2003; Sable et al., 2006). For example, some victims may fear that
reporting another student will result in social isolation or ostracism, especially at
institutions with strong social cliques such as institutions where the Greek system or
athletic programs dominate (Karjane et al., 2002). Further, in considering the
consequences of reporting, the victims also fear unsympathetic responses from the police
and legal authorities (Fisher et al., 2003).
Barriers to Bystander Reporting
Unlike victim reporting, which focuses on reporting after an assault, reporting by
bystanders includes any intervention before, during or after an assault that prevents harm
or additional harm to the victim (Banyard et al., 2009; Banyard et al., 2007). While
Berkowitz (2008) conceptualizes a bystander as someone who “witnesses a problem

31
behavior and does not do anything about it” (p. 4), he and other researchers nonetheless
acknowledge that bystanders have the potential to assist a victim despite a general pattern
of unresponsiveness (Banyard et al., 2009; Banyard et al., 2007; Fabiano et al., 2003;
Hillenbrand-Gunn, 2004; Stein, 2007)
A substantial body of bystander research has found that the larger the group of
bystanders, the less likely a victim is to receive help (Latané & Darley, 1968, 1970;
Latané & Nida, 1981). Group size is associated with the bystander misperceiving the
situation in several different ways, including social influence, diffusion of responsibility,
and pluralistic ignorance (Berkowitz, 2008; Latané & Darley, 1970). Social influence
occurs when bystanders observe the inaction of other bystanders (Berkowitz, 2008;
Latané & Darley, 1970). Simply by not taking action, others in the group – whether they
are present or are only perceived by the bystander to be present – define an ambiguous
situation for the bystander, leading the bystander to incorrectly assume that the situation
is not critical or that action is inappropriate (Berkowitz, 2008; Latané & Darley, 1970).
Likewise, diffusion of responsibility reduces the responsibility on the part of the
bystander because the bystander assumes that responsibility for taking action is shared
among all bystanders (Berkowitz, 2008; Latané & Darley, 1970). Whereas bystanders in
a group share the responsibility of dealing with the situation, a single bystander would
alone bear all of the responsibility (Latané & Darley, 1970). Thirdly, pluralistic
ignorance occurs when a bystander perceives incorrectly that that the victim does not
wish to be helped (Berkowitz, 2008). An example of pluralistic ignorance is illustrated

32
by Latané’s and Rodin’s (1969) experiment, in which bystanders heard a woman fall and
call for help but did not assist due to doubts that the victim wished to be assisted.
Barriers are also based on bystander fears that range from a lack of support when
attempting to intervene and negative reactions or comments from others, to outright
retaliation and physical and emotional harm (Berkowitz, 2008). For example, fear of
embarrassment to oneself or others is a barrier to bystander action (Berkowitz, 2008).
Should a bystander misinterpret the situation and intervene, he or she risks being
perceived negatively by others (Berkowitz, 2008; Latané & Darley, 1970). Berkowitz
(2008) suggests that concern about embarrassing the person the bystander confronts also
inhibits bystander action. Also, like victims, the fear of retaliation inhibits bystander
reporting (Berkowitz, 2008).
Given these barriers, the bystander is faced with an avoidance-avoidance conflict
where the consequences for failing to intervene include sympathy, shame, and guilt, and
the consequences for intervening include embarrassment and possible physical harm
(Latané & Darley, 1970). Consequently, to be removed from this conflict, bystanders
utilize a variety of strategies that include refraining from noticing the event, deciding that
the circumstances do not constitute an emergency, deciding the situation is not critical, or
deciding that intervention may not be appropriate (Latané & Darley, 1970). Each of
these strategies prevents bystander intervention in general emergency situations.
Bystanders in Sexual Assault Situations
Compared to intervening in other crimes, bystanders in sexual assault situations
must navigate emotionally charged circumstances of elevated complexity. First, the

33
private and personal nature of sexual victimization appears to contribute to the
complexity of the situation. In their review of the literature on sexual coercion
experienced by women, Adams-Curtis and Forbes (2004) discuss the personal and private
characteristic of sexual assault, which they assert “elicits a wide variety of ethical
considerations and affective responses” (p. 96). Concerns of confidentiality emerge as
barriers to reporting by the victim, many of whom choose to keep their victimization
hidden (Fisher et al., 2003; Frese, Moya, & Megias, 2004; Sable et al., 2006), making the
victim’s desire and need for help unclear from the perspective of the bystander. Also, the
complex legal definitions of sexual assault that vary from state to state and institution to
institution (Fisher et al., 2000; Karjane et al., 2002; Koss et al., 1987) can prevent victims
and bystanders from conceptualizing an incident as an assault. Moreover, according to
Adams-Curtis and Forbes (2004), sexual coercion is a complex social behavior that may
begin as normal heterosexual interaction, ending with such interaction going terribly
wrong (Adams-Curtis & Forbes, 2004). Thus, faced with ambiguity on several levels,
bystanders – particularly those unfamiliar with sexual violence – look to others to
interpret a situation, which can result in social influence or pluralistic ignorance.
Research has shown that bystanders in any situation may be unprepared to
effectively intervene, particularly when faced with decisions that must be made “under
threat, urgency, and stress” (Latané & Darley, 1970, p. 36). In instances of sexual
assault, bystander ineffectiveness has been documented in two qualitative studies that
found that inappropriate or unhelpful attempts at support were common from those who
informally provided support to a sexual assault victim (Ahrens, 2006; Dunn, Vail-Smith,

34
& Knight, 1999). Inappropriate support included behaviors that – although well-
intentioned – were hurtful, inadequate, or unneeded, where the victims were advised not
to report, treated as though they were incapable of caring for themselves, or required to
console the friend or family member about the incident (Ahrens, 2006). In a qualitative
study on ways in which college student bystanders respond to disclosures of rape, a small
percentage of bystanders acknowledged doing nothing, not knowing what to say or do, or
acknowledged offering help that was counterproductive (Dunn et al., 1999).
Helpful behaviors by bystanders in sexual assault situation include asking
someone if she needs help, offering support, sharing information about an incident of
sexual violence with formal authorities in case it would be helpful, accompanying the
victim to report the incident, and allowing the victim to decide the next steps, if any, as
noted by Banyard (2008) as well as in the literature about sexual assault victimization
(Ahrens, 2006; California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 2004; Fisher et al., 2003;
Karjane et al., 2002; Sable et al., 2006). Given that bystander action can be appropriate
or inappropriate, one of the dependent variables in the current study involves whether
participants, as bystanders to an incident of sexual assault, offered appropriate assistance
to the victim.
Variables Affecting Bystander Responses
Bystander Awareness of Sexual Assault
Beyond a possible lack of awareness of what constitutes a sexual assault (Fisher
et al., 2003; Karjane et al., 2002), bystanders face pervasive pro-sexual assault myths and
attitudes that appear to undermine their progression through the stages of the bystander

35
framework, specifically in the first two stages – noticing the event and interpreting it as a
problem. For example, myths and attitudes include victim beliefs about the personal
culpability in being victimized (California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 2004; Fisher
et al., 2003; Sable et al., 2006), which are shared by bystanders (Frese et al., 2004; J. Lee
et al., 2005; Reilly, Lott, Caldwell, & DeLuca, 1992) as well as by college campuses that
emphasize the victim’s role in preventing an assault instead of focusing on the
perpetrator’s responsibility for the crime or on a bystander’s ability to intervene (Karjane
et al., 2002). Frese et al. (2004) found that the more ambiguous a rape situation appeared
to be, the more the bystander is influenced by stereotypes about rape; although even those
with low acceptance of rape myths are still influenced by situational factors of an assault,
such as the victim’s culpability in situations where the victim was drunk or had dressed
provocatively. Moreover, another study found that attitudes, beliefs, experiences, and
behaviors relevant to sexual harassment and assault also varied significantly by gender,
with men self-reporting a tolerance for “adversarial sexual beliefs, rape-myth acceptance,
likelihood to rape, and experience as a sexual victimizer” (Reilly et al., 1992, p. 122).
Studies utilizing the social norms conceptual framework found that the behavior
of college students is strongly influenced by the perceptions of their peer group
(Berkowitz, 2004; Fabiano et al., 2003; Stein, 2007). Fabiano et al. (2003) examined the
use of social norms with men on college campuses to decrease sexual violence –
specifically the perceived importance of a woman’s consent and a willingness to
intervene in a sexual assault. The study found that a man’s willingness to intervene in a
sexual assault incident was significantly linked to his perceptions of the behavior of other

36
men in similar situations (Fabiano et al., 2003). Similarly, Stein (2007) found that most
men indicated a willingness to prevent rape, although they perceived their peers’
willingness to prevent rape to be significantly less positive than their own.
Given the salience of pro-sexual assault myths and attitudes on bystander
behavior in sexual assault situations and the importance of dispelling such myths and
stereotypes to increase bystander action, research has focused on understanding bystander
behavior in sexual assault situations on high school and college campuses since the early
2000s (Banyard et al., 2009; Banyard et al., 2007; Berkowitz, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008;
Hillenbrand-Gunn, 2004; Yamawaki, 2007). According to Berkowitz (2005), such studies
on social norms have shown promise in providing interventions that prevent sexual
assault (Berkowitz, 2005). For example, Hillenbrand-Gunn (2004) found social norms
intervention to be successful in reducing rape supportive attitudes among high school
students.
In addition, Banyard et al. (2007) found that in experimental and longitudinal
evaluations, college student bystanders showed improvement across measures of pro-
social bystander attitudes, knowledge, and behavior conducive to sexual assault
prevention. Banyard et al. (2007) measured these constructs using Likert-scale type
items on a self-report questionnaire. For example, Banyard et al.’s (2007) bystander
behaviors scale asks participants whether they have engaged in 51 specific bystander
behaviors during the last two months, an approach that targets actual behavior, thereby
avoiding socially desirable responses. However, it is unclear whether a response of “no”
indicates that the participants chose not to act or that they did not have the opportunity to

37
act (i.e., did not encounter the situation). While the studies on bystanders in sexual
assault situations show the promising use of social norms approaches to increase
awareness, the studies are limited to populations of students who are primarily White and
American and consequently do not describe the impact of that cultural variation may
have on bystander behavior. Bystander awareness may also be influenced by the
awareness and use of counseling services, both on and off campus, which is discussed
later in this review. In this study, sexual assault awareness is measured by the
participants’ attendance at sexual assault-related programs or events, and use of
counseling services either on or off campus.
Prior Experience as a Victim
Prior experience as a victim may affect a bystander’s response to an incident of
sexual assault, although the influence of prior victimization on a bystander’s reporting
behavior has not been widely studied. A qualitative study of bystanders who intervened
in actual situations involving danger found that those who intervened reported
significantly more prior exposure to crime, either by being personally victimized or by
witnessing the victimization of another, than those who did not intervene (Huston,
Ruggiero, Conner, & Geis, 1981). While Huston et al. (1981) did not focus on
international college students nor on intervening in sexual assault situations, the study’s
findings suggest that prior victimization experienced by student bystanders may be
positively linked to reporting behavior. Further, as a variable, a bystander’s prior
experience with violence may contribute to the bystander’s skill and knowledge, which
has been shown to be positively correlated to intervening in a sexual assault situation (see

38
Banyard et al., 2007) as such experience may help the bystander progress through the
stages of the bystander framework.
Variables Affecting Bystander Reporting by International Student Sojourners
To understand the bystander characteristics of students situated in their U.S. host-
culture, this section first reviews literature on social norms and perceptions of sexual
assault in different countries, utilizing Hofstede’s Cultural Values framework. Then this
section reviews literature on counseling international students to identify additional
independent variables that appear to be associated with the stages of bystander reporting.
While studies on sojourner adjustment recognize that there is great diversity among
international students, such studies suggest that international students face added
challenges that their domestic counterparts do not (Hechanova-Alampay et al., 2002;
Pines et al., 2003; S. Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007; Yeh & Inose, 2003). A discussion on
how these variables might affect the decision-making and progression through the stages
of bystander reporting is also included.
Country of Origin and Cultural Identification
Bystander behavior is based on common social norms among Americans who,
despite their diverse backgrounds, have developed these norms over time. Likewise,
international college students have also developed distinct social norms from their
country over time. According to Hofstede (2001), societal structures and ways of
functioning such as family, legislation, and education and political systems contribute to
the stability of societal norms over generations. Thus, for international college student
sojourners, deeply rooted social norms of their home-country are brought to bear on their

39
behavior as bystanders in the United States. Empirical support for this assertion relies
primarily on studies on cultural influences on victims on sexual assault, although a
solitary study recently explored the influence of cultural norms on bystander behavior.
Of the studies on bystanders in sexual assault situations, only one study
(Yamawaki, 2007) has focused on a group of international students, comparing their
help-seeking advice to that of their American counterparts utilizing hypothetical rape
scenarios. While the study’s international student sample was limited to 100 Japanese
students at a university in Japan, the study revealed that cultural norms have a significant
influence on the type of advice the bystander will give a hypothetical victim (Yamawaki,
2007). Specifically, the study found significant differences in the way Japanese
participants minimize the seriousness of rape compared to their American counterparts,
suggesting the prevalence of stronger rape-supportive attitudes among the Japanese
(Yamawaki, 2007). Further demonstrating the acceptance of rape-supportive attitudes,
Japanese participants also tended to give help-seeking advice to the stranger-rape victim
more than to the date-rape victim as compared to their American counterparts
(Yamawaki, 2007). Moreover, the feeling of shame was a significant factor in the
Japanese participants’ advising the victim (hypothetical sister) to seek help, whereas for
the American students, shame was not a significant factor (Yamawaki, 2007). Japanese
participants felt more feelings of shame about the victimization of their hypothetical
sister than did the American participants, and Japanese participants were more inclined to
advise the victim to seek help from family instead of the police (Yamawaki, 2007).
Although this study does not address international college students studying in the United

40
States, it does illustrate how cross-cultural differences impact bystander reporting in
sexual assault situations.
Due to the lack of empirical studies on the influence of culture on bystander
reporting, this review also considered the body of research on the cultural influences on
victim reporting and help-seeking behaviors of those from different countries. First, in
examining the attitudes toward rape held by Asian and Caucasian college students
studying in the United States, Lee, Pomeroy, Yoo, and Rheinboldt (2005) found that
Asian students are more likely than Caucasian students to believe that (a) women bear the
responsibility for preventing rape, (b) sex is a motivation for rape, (c) victims precipitate
rape, (d) severe punishment is required for rapists, and (e) rape is perpetrated by
strangers. While this study did not disaggregate the Asian students by ethnicity or
nationality nor identify whether the Asian students were Asian-American or foreign
nationals, the study nonetheless highlighted the ethnic and cultural differences in victim-
blaming attitudes toward rape (J. Lee et al., 2005).
Some studies report a cultural reluctance of victims to speak openly about sex
because rape is conceptualized as a matter between two individuals instead of as a crime
of violence (Dussich, 2001; Luo, 2000; Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 1999). In cultures that
frame rape as a personal problem belonging to the female, rather than a public problem,
feelings of self-blame are strong (Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 1999). In Palestinian society, for
example, social reaction to rape is “heavily influenced by such cultural values as family
honor, social shame, family reputation, and female virginity” (p. 166), revealing the
society’s patriarchal and sexist attitudes (Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 1999). These themes are

41
echoed in both Chinese and Japanese societies. For example, Luo (2000) argues that rape
is culturally constructed as female victims experience shame from losing their virginity or
chastity and guilt from disgracing the family’s honor. Luo’s (2000) qualitative study on
35 rape victims found that culturally sanctioned “rape-induced marriage proposals” (p.
589) serve as a means of preserving chastity or family honor (Luo, 2000).
While barriers to reporting in Japan are similar to that in other countries, in pre-
study interviews Dussich found strong cultural pressures among Japanese women to defer
to family members, friends, or those of higher status (i.e., men and older persons), which
he asserts significantly influences the reporting of rape (Dussich, 2001). As discussed
earlier, Yamawaki (2007) similarly found that Japanese participants tended to advise a
hypothetical rape victim to seek help from family instead of police or mental health
professionals than did their American participants. This deference to others has
implications for the manner in which help is accepted by the victim and ultimately in the
ability of a bystander to intervene effectively.
According to Hofstede (2001), a country’s position on the masculine-feminine
scale affects norms regarding sexual behavior, suggesting that feelings about sex and the
way sex is practiced and experienced are culturally influenced. Hofstede (2001) also
asserts that sex is more of a taboo topic in masculine countries, such as Japan, China, and
the United States (albeit to a lesser extent), than in feminine countries, which include
Sweden, Norway, Korea, and Thailand.
One of the key differences between the norms of collectivist and individualist
societies is that collectivist societies emphasize the importance of maintaining harmony,

42
avoiding direct confrontation, while individualist societies consider speaking one’s mind
to be a hallmark of honesty (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). The cultural values framework
also contributes to the understanding of shame, an important value in collectivist
countries, where “persons belonging to a group from which a member has infringed upon
the rules of society will feel ashamed based on a sense of collective obligation” (Hofstede
& Hofstede, 2005, p. 89). While the feeling of guilt is felt by an individual, the feeling of
shame is based on whether the infraction becomes known by others (Hofstede &
Hofstede, 2005).
Hofstede’s and Hofstede’s (2005) findings are consistent with Dussich’s (2001)
findings on women rape victims in Japan. According to Dussich (2001), non-reporting is
a passive act that requires less energy and that aligns with a very strong cultural values
such the Japanese values of “gaman” (resigned endurance) or of a shared sense of
responsibility in the assault (Dussich, 2001). Further, the Japanese cultural value of “wa”
(group harmony) suggests that conflicts are best diffused as opposed to the Western ideas
of resolving conflicts through confrontation, complaint, or litigation (Dussich, 2001).
In short, due to a lack of information on the impact of cultural values on
bystanders, this review instead drew upon research on cultural norms that influence
reporting by victims. However, what remains unclear is whether the norms of the home-
culture will supplant norms of the host-culture if dissimilar, given Hofstede’s contention
that cultural norms are resistant to change, or whether observed norms will change as the
student learns about the host-culture. Therefore, to operationalize this question for the
current study about bystander reporting, the international student’s country of origin, and

43
his or her degree of cultural identification can be utilized because these variables inform
how he or she might interpret an incident of sexual assault, and subsequently, whether he
or she will feel responsible for doing something about it.
Gender
Bystanders in general must overcome pervasive stereotypes and rape myths about
the culpability of the victim (Frese et al., 2004; J. Lee et al., 2005; Reilly et al., 1992),
which are linked to gender. For example, Reilly et al. (1992) found a significant
variation by gender in sexual harassment and assault-related attitudes and behaviors, with
male participants self-reporting a tolerance for “adversarial sexual beliefs, rape-myth
acceptance, likelihood to rape, and experience as a sexual victimizer” (Reilly et al., 1992,
p. 122). For international students, cultural norms regarding gender may also influence
perceptions about sexual assault and about intervening as a bystander. In their study of
the rape perceptions of Japanese and American college students, Yamawaki and Tschanz
(2005) found a significant variation between the two groups, which was attributed to the
participants’ traditional beliefs about gender roles. Specifically, among the Japanese
participants, the study found that in a marital rape scenario female participants assigned
more blame to the victim and minimized the incident than did males (Yamawaki &
Tschanz, 2005). Yamawaki and Tschanz’s study (2005) is limited to the perceptions of a
sample of college students at a university in the United States and in Japan, and the study
does not involve international students in the United States. However, the findings
nonetheless suggest that a student’s gender may influence how he or she might interpret
an incident of sexual assault and whether he or she decides to report.

44
English Language Proficiency
Language difficulties faced by international students encompass a variety of
factors. First, English standardized test scores required by most colleges – usually the
Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) – measure academic reading
comprehension instead of providing accurate measures of oral comprehension and
communication (Mori, 2000; Pedersen, 1991). So, while international students may meet
minimum TOEFL requirements, they may perceive themselves to be deficient in the very
skills required for reporting a sexual assault in an English-speaking environment.
Second, one study on cultural adjustment found that students from Latin America and
Asia experience greater levels of stress than other international students because of
cultural and language issues (Wilton & Constantine, 2003). However, even those from
English-speaking countries must contend with unintelligible accents or different
expressions (Mori, 2000), and foreign accents sometimes lead to cultural discrimination
(J. Lee & Rice, 2007).
Further, large amounts of stress experienced by international students are likely to
adversely affect English communication skills (Mori, 2000). Although using a
convenience sample that may not generalize to all international students, Yeh and Inose
(2003) found that self-reported English fluency was significant predictor of stress from
acculturation, suggesting that higher English proficiency may facilitate higher levels of
confidence in daily interaction, including seeking help. Yeh and Inose (2003) utilized
three traditional measures of English proficiency: perceived English proficiency, comfort
with using the language, and frequency of use. However, the third measure (frequency of

45
use) does not take context into consideration as living and studying in the United States
already require that international students use English frequently.
In short, challenges with the English language have the potential to adversely
affect bystander efficacy. Consequently, the international student bystander who has low
English proficiency – real or perceived – may be precluded from choosing a course of
action or from having adequate information to notice the event.
Social Support
A lack of social support networks are among cultural-adjustment related stressors
experienced by international students (Mori, 2000; S. Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007), and
such stress can result in the deterioration of the student’s physiological and psychological
health (Senel Poyrazli, Kavanaugh, Baker, & Al-Timimi, 2004), which has the potential
to impede bystander action. Koyama (2005) notes that in contrast to immigrant students
who live in the United States with their families, non-immigrant international students
typically move to the United States alone. Living apart from family and close friends is
often difficult (Koyama, 2005) as international students feel a sense of loss and
frequently think about their family and friends in the home country (Sandhu & Asrabadi,
1994).
In their quantitative study of 372 international students, Yeh and Inose (2003)
found that social connectedness is an important predictor of acculturative stress, which is
stress related to adjusting to life in the United States. Further, Poyrazli et al. (2004)
found that low levels of social support result in high levels of acculturative stress and
consequently lower levels of adjustment. Consequently, examining with whom

46
international students associate may yield insight about their acculturation to the United
States, not only in terms of social support to weather cultural-related stress, but also in
terms of the connectedness to the social norms of their home country, or conversely, to
adjust to the social norms of the United States. A literature review by Berry (1997)
suggests that while for some individuals supportive relationships with co-nationals are
linked with lower stress, and for others relationships with individuals of the host-culture
are helpful, most studies indicate that supportive relationships with both cultures are most
helpful to successful adjustment to a host-culture. Despite being separated from support
networks in their home countries, international students often have access to co-nationals
on campus such as other students from their home country, family members, or the
family members of other students (Evans, Carlin, & Potts, 2009). On the upside, these
co-nationals serve as social support that helps to enforce cultural values, allow for
expression of such values, and mitigate the difficulties of living abroad (Evans et al.,
2009). However, according to Evans et al. (2009) involvement with co-national groups
may also stifle an international student’s involvement with the host-culture. Other
studies have concurred that an international student’s successful cultural adjustment is
linked to his or her interaction with the host-culture (Al-Sharideh & Goe, 1998;
Chapdelaine & Alexitch, 2004; Senel Poyrazli et al., 2004).
Social support and connectedness are measured in a variety of ways. First, Al-
Sherideh and Goe (1998) summed the number of strong ties among co-culturals (those
whom they would call for help) reported by international student participants. Strong ties
were compared to the number of ties international students held with Americans.

47
However, the study’s scope was limited to ethnic communities, and not on participant ties
with those from other cultures, which would be germane to the current study. Second,
Yeh and Inose (2003) utilized the Social Connectedness Scale (SCS), which focused on
the sense of closeness the international student experienced with friends, peers, or
society. Yeh and Inose (2003) also utilized the Social Support Questionnaire-Short Form
(SSQSR), which assessed perceived support in terms of the number of people the
international students could rely on for help as well as the individual’s satisfaction with
his or her perceived social support. Third, M. Lee (1981) examined the social support
received by international students according to those with whom the international student
lived. Her national study of nearly 1,900 international students representing 102
countries from 30 U.S. universities investigated the students’ met and unmet needs during
their study in the United States (M. Lee, 1981). The study found that international
students who lived with U.S. students or with other international students tended to have
more satisfactory international living experiences than those with other living
arrangements (M. Lee, 1981). Because the focus of this study is on the social norms that
may influence bystander reporting, measures used by M. Lee (1981) were deemed most
appropriate for the current study. The measures would enable the researcher to explore
the participants’ contact with social norms of their home country or the host country, via
the social support received through the partcipants’ living arrangements.
Intention to Return Home
Even if an international student’s cultural adjustment has been smooth, the
decision to return to his or her home country after graduation may be a source of stress.

48
In her review of literature on acculturation stress, Koyama (2005) suggested that
undergraduate international students experience a tension between their adapting to
American customs and values, and the expectations of their parents to expect them to
return to their home county. Further, Mori (2000) explains that international students
typically finalize their decision about their returning home at the conclusion of their
studies. Despite their initial intention to study in America as sojourners, many
international students grapple with sustained periods of indecision while they weigh the
costs and benefits of remaining in America or returning home (Mori, 2000; Thomas &
Althen, 1989). Thus, it is common for the international students to be in flux regarding
their intention to return home (Mori, 2000), and a student’s decision-making is
complicated by reentry concerns such as an uncertainty of the future, pressure from
family members to “get on with life,” and a lack of clarity of how one’s career path might
integrate international experiences (S. Macdonald & Arthur, 2004). Likewise, Cox
(2006) found that due to a lack of networks and contacts during their time abroad, many
international students were concerned with reestablishing their careers. Thus, personal
pressures on top of academic demands may prevent international students from assuming
the responsibility for assisting others or from taking action in sexual assault situations.
Length of Time in the United States
Studies have also found that the length of time international college students
spend in the United States is positively correlated to cultural adjustment (S. Poyrazli &
Grahame, 2007; Wilton & Constantine, 2003). For example, one study that focused on
college students from Asia and Latin America found that those with longer residences in

49
the United States tended to report better adjustment to U.S. cultural norms (Wilton &
Constantine, 2003). Wilton and Constantine (2003) suggest that students who live in the
United States for longer periods of time have had the time to establish social support
networks than those who have recently arrived. Thus, international students who adjust
to the host-culture may begin to show patterns of bystander behavior based on social
norms of the United States, or these students may develop an awareness of and comfort in
using resources that support bystander efficacy and can facilitate bystander reporting.
Help-seeking Behaviors and Sexual Assault Awareness
Help-seeking by international students is constrained by numerous factors. For
example, studies have found that, among many cultures, perceived stigma is often
attached to seeking help, particularly psychological help (Mori, 2000; Yamawaki, 2007;
Yoon & Jepsen, 2008). Further, the perceived lack of awareness of campus resources,
doubt about the resources’ appropriateness for international students, and the
affordability of such resources limit help-seeking (J. Lee & Rice, 2007; Mori, 2000; S.
Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007) as does the perceived lack of culturally knowledgeable
counselors (Mori, 2000). The help-seeking characteristics of and challenges faced by
international students correlate to international college students being less inclined to
advise victims to seek help from campus counseling services (Yoon & Jepsen, 2008) or
police (Yamawaki, 2007) than their American counterparts. Mental health and
counseling services are significantly underused (Futa, Hsu, & Hansen, 2001; Mori, 2000;
Yoon & Jepsen, 2008) or, if used, they are terminated early (Futa et al., 2001; Pedersen,
1991). In their review of literature on adjustment strategies for international students,

50
Khoo and Abu-Rasain (1994) assert that because international students rarely seek
counseling assistance, counselors bear the responsibility of reaching out to international
students and of clearly explaining the services available to them.
Moreover, when seeking help, international students tend to rely on co-nationals,
which is partly a result of international students becoming discouraged after
misperceiving the intentions of American students or after facing discrimination (Mori,
2000) that ranges from perceptions of unfairness and inhospitality to cultural intolerance
and confrontation (J. Lee & Rice, 2007). Additionally, findings from a qualitative study
(J. Lee & Rice, 2007) indicate that international students who experienced violence kept
silent because they “did not trust that they will be heard” (p. 404) or they feared being
deported for instigating trouble. Although this study did not focus on sexual violence, the
findings suggest a resigned acceptance of violence on the part of international students
that resulted in non-reporting (J. Lee & Rice, 2007). Whether real or perceived, these
barriers to help-seeking are linked to inadequacies in America, such as cultural
intolerance and discrimination (J. Lee & Rice, 2007). In contrast, the reliance on co-
nationals may serve as a facilitator to bystander reporting based on the finding by Levine
et al. (2002) that bystanders are likely to assist an in-group member.
In summary, this section first presents variables, such as prior experience as a
victim and sexual assault awareness via outreach, which focus on factors that have the
potential to impact all student bystanders, foreign or not. Adjustment theory suggests
that international students acculturate differently, possibly according to a U-shaped
pattern (Leong & Chou, 2002), and variables pertaining to the potential challenges and

51
unique experiences of international students as they acculturate to the United States also
emerged from the review of the literature. These variables include the international
student’s country of origin, cultural identification, English language proficiency, social
support, intention to return home, length of time in the United States, and sexual assault
awareness. The further study of these variables may reveal the extent to which each
variable bolsters or hinders the international student bystander’s efficacy, willingness to
help, and decisional balance in reporting, and consequent progression through the
bystander framework.
Conclusions
With international students constituting about 3.5% of total U.S. higher education
enrollment during the 2007-2008 year and representing a 7% growth over the prior year
(Institute of International Education, 2008a), the growth and impact of international
students on U.S. college campuses suggest that -- like the student population in general –
international students are potential bystanders who can aid victims in sexual assault
situations and ultimately facilitate reporting to formal authorities. This review found that
some similarities exist between barriers for victims and barriers for bystanders to report,
such as fear of retaliation and acceptance of rape myths; however, bystander reporting is
primarily inhibited by the presence or perceived presence of others (Berkowitz, 2004;
Latané & Darley, 1970) as well as by who these bystanders are perceived to be (Levine et
al., 2002). Additionally, bystander behavior in sexual assault situations is complicated by
additional ambiguity, and the pervasiveness of pro-sexual assault myths and attitudes
(Frese et al., 2004; Karjane et al., 2002; J. Lee et al., 2005; Reilly et al., 1992) combined

52
with a lack of knowledge of how to effectively respond (Ahrens, 2006; Dunn et al.,
1999).
Research on international students indicate that international students as a group
are not well-understood by Americans (Leong & Chou, 2002; Pedersen, 1991) and are
commonly underserved and mistreated (J. Lee & Rice, 2007). Also, studies that examine
ethnic and cultural variables about college students reporting a sexual assault primarily
focus on White domestic students (Fisher et al., 2003; Sable et al., 2006) or do not
disaggregate results by nationality (J. Lee et al., 2005).
Although bystander behavior is based on common social norms (Berkowitz,
2004), data indicate that international students may not necessarily share the norms of the
host-country. Yet, the extent to which home-country social norms are observed in the
host-country is unclear. Also, based on research on the counseling of international
students, language difficulties, acculturation challenges, and patterns of limited help-
seeking are among that factors that may adversely impact the bystander behavior of
international students if left unaddressed. Certainly, these challenges that are distinct to
international college students must be reframed as deficits within institutions (i.e., failure
of the institution to adapt to different cultural needs) and not deficits within students.
Lastly, this review has connected the research to date on sexual victimization on
college campuses, bystanders generally and in sexual assault situations, cultural
influences of social norms, and challenges faced by international students to inform the
topic under study. While the literature does not provide empirical data on the
characteristics of international student bystanders who report in sexual assault situations,

53
the literature pinpoints variables useful for commencing the systematic descriptive study
of international college students as bystanders in sexual assault situations. These
variables include the factors that influence the international student bystanders’ reporting
in sexual assault situations, as well as the student’s gender, prior experience as a victim,
sexual assault awareness, country of origin, degree of cultural identification, length of
time in the United States, English language proficiency, social support, and intention to
return home. Such data are needed to help institutions enhance their sexual assault
prevention, response, and reporting efforts, given the burgeoning population of
international students on U.S. college campuses.

54
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to expand the information about international student
bystanders who report in sexual assault situations on U.S. college campuses. Unlike
victim reporting, which focuses on reporting after an assault, reporting by bystanders
includes any intervention before, during or after an assault that prevents harm or
additional harm to the victim (Banyard et al., 2009; Banyard et al., 2007). This study
attempted to identify and describe salient barriers and facilitators to reporting
encountered by international college students. This study also sought to describe
characteristics of international college students who report and who do not report in
sexual assault situations with the intention of providing data that can assist campus
administrators in designing reporting policies, protocols, and materials appropriate and
effective for the diverse subgroups of international students.
Research Questions
Based on gaps identified in the review of literature, the following research
questions guided this study:
Research Question 1: What are the characteristics of international college student
bystanders who report and who do not report in sexual assault situations according to
gender, country of origin, degree of cultural identification, length of time in the United
States, English language proficiency, social support, experience as a victim of violence,
sexual assault awareness, and intention to return home?

55
Research Question 2: To what extent do international students’ gender, country of
origin, degree of cultural identification, length of time in the United States, English
language proficiency, sense of connectedness, experience as a victim of violence, sexual
assault awareness, and intention to return home predict their reporting behavior in sexual
assault situations?
Research Question 3: What cultural, institutional, or relationship factors do
international college student bystanders perceive as being facilitators or barriers to their
reporting in sexual assault situations?
Research Design
Educational research designs include qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods
for investigating a problem (Creswell, 2009). Quantitative methods are best suited for
research questions that focus on examining the relationships among variables using
standardized measures, testing for the significance of findings, and making inferences
about a population based on a sample of this population (Mertler & Charles, 2005).
Moreover, quantitative methods allow researchers to work with large samples using
objective instruments that can be administered to participants in a short amount of time,
providing “quick, inexpensive snapshots of narrow aspects of research problems” (Patten,
2009, p. 21). Quantitative methods also enable researchers to investigate a phenomena in
a manner that minimizes involvement with participants to avoid influencing participants
(Mertler & Charles, 2005). Quantitative methods include descriptive, non-experimental
research that can be used for depicting “people, events, situations, conditions, and
relationships as they currently exist or once existed” (Mertler & Charles, 2005, p. 29).

56
Given the characteristics of quantitative methods, a quantitative research design
was most appropriate for answering the research questions guiding this study. For
example, quantitative methods allowed for exploring the relationships between the
independent variables pertaining to international student bystanders and the dependent
variable, which is the bystander’s reporting in sexual assault situations. Quantitative
methods also allowed for an examination of the specific factors (independent variables)
that international student bystanders perceived as influential to their decision to report
(dependent variable) in sexual assault situations. Quantitative methods enabled the
prediction of reporting behavior (dependent variable) based on characteristics of the
international student (independent variables). Further, this study utilized non-
experimental research because no treatment was given to participants (Patten, 2009).
Instead, the researcher described participants as they were based on their anonymous
survey responses.
Population and Sample
Constituting about 3.5% of total U.S. higher education enrollment, 623,805
international students studied at colleges and universities across the United States during
the 2007-2008 academic year (Institute of International Education, 2008a). Students
from India, China, South Korea, Japan, Canada, and Taiwan -- the top six places of origin
-- represent 54% of the population of international college students studying in the United
States (Institute of International Education, 2008a).
This study utilized a convenience sample from a large, private research institute
with the largest number of international students in the United States (Institute of

57
International Education, 2008a). The convenience sample also included international
students and alumni who were formerly international students from a from a small,
private management institute. To recruit participants, this researcher worked with student
outcomes research office at the large institute and the office of the executive vice
president at the management institute to disseminate the survey instrument to
approximately 1,500 international students. Participation in this study was voluntary and
self-selected.
Instrumentation
Quantitative, non-experimental studies often utilize survey instruments to collect
data from participants (Creswell, 2009). This study utilized an online survey instrument
that was hosted by SurveyMonkey, a survey software application. The survey enabled
the collection of a “quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes or opinions of
a population by studying a sample of the population” (Creswell, 2009, p. 145). Online
surveys in particular allow for collecting data cost-effectively, quickly, and remotely
(Rea & Parker, 2005). Moreover, the online survey format also gave participants ample
time to complete the survey, and potential respondents were reminded to reply via a
follow up email message as suggested by Rea and Parker (2005).
The instrument developed for this study was the Survey of International Student
Bystanders in Sexual Assault Situations (Appendix A). The survey consisted of two
paths -- one question set for current students and one for alumni. Each question set
consisted of 45 items, adapted from several studies. The question sets were equivalent;
however, the alumni questions were retrospectively worded. Logic was attached to the

58
first question (whether the participant is a student or a graduate) to route the participant to
the appropriate set of questions. Participants who skipped the first question were routed
to the default “student set” of questions.
A draft of the survey instrument with 47 items was pilot-tested on a group of 15
international college students and alumni who were formerly international students from
various countries to obtain data confirming the clarity and meaning of the survey items.
Based on the pilot test, the researcher revised the survey. The researcher reworded
questions, using simpler words and sentence patterns, and reorganized some survey
questions, grouping similar items into sub-sections. The researcher also adjusted several
measures for brevity and clarity. Lastly, because the survey was to be administered in
English to both native and non-native speakers of English, the researcher also provided
brief definitions for several words that pilot-test participants found unclear or unfamiliar.
The final survey consisted of 45 items.
Fifteen independent variables and two dependent variables were used throughout
the data analyses to compare the differences within the sample pertaining to their
reporting behavior. Appendix D lists these variables, including the scales used for
analysis. The alpha coefficient values are also indicated to confirm the reliability of each
scale that was either adapted or created for this study.
English language proficiency. A composite score based on two measures
provided the participants’ self-reported English language proficiency. These measures,
used in a study by Yeh and Inose (2003), included items such as “What is your present
level of English fluency?” and “How comfortable are you communicating in English?”

59
Participants used a 5-point Likert scale to rate their perceived English language
proficiency level and comfort with using English. The Cronbach’s alpha for the two
items was 0.85.
Demographic items. Items about demographic variables such as gender and
length of time in the United States were taken from various studies that examined the
cultural adjustment of international students studying in the United States (Barratt &
Huba, 1994; Hechanova-Alampay et al., 2002; Yeh & Inose, 2003). Because this study is
delimited to international students who are non-U.S. citizens, one survey item asks for the
participant’s country of citizenship, which is a proxy for country of origin.
The demographics section of the survey instrument also included participants’
social support, sexual assault awareness via outreach services, experience as a victim, and
intention to return home. Each of these variables was measured by a single item
pertaining to that variable. A participant’s social support, a nominal variable, was
measured by an item taken from a survey by Lee (M. Lee, 1981), which asked with
whom the participant lives: alone, with a U.S. family, U.S. student(s), international
student(s) from another country, international student(s) from the participant’s country,
spouse (and children), and other. Items were not mutually exclusive; participants
checked all that applied.
A participant’s use of sexual assault outreach services was measured with an item
that asked participants to indicate which programs or services they have attended or used
in the United States: education or training program about sexual assault, campus-wide
special event about sexual assault, on-campus counseling services, off-campus

60
counseling services, and other. Items were not mutually exclusive; participants checked
all that applied. Participants indicated their experience as a victim of violence by
answering a yes or no question. A participant’s intention to return home following his or
her program of study was measured by the likeliness that they would remain permanently
in the United States using a 5-point Likert Scale (1 = definitely will, 5 = definitely not) as
used by Barratt and Huba (1994).
Degree of cultural identification. A participant’s degree of cultural identification
was measured by three items. Using a hypothetical situation and a 4-point Likert scale,
the researcher presented the participants with statements about the extent to which the
participants’ cultural values related to seeking help from formal authorities, discussing
sexual violence, or handling problems influenced their helping. For example, participants
were asked, “My cultural values regarding how problems should be handled would
encourage me to help.” These measures were included in the section on Factors
Influencing Reporting on the survey. Responses were coded according to the strength of
cultural values in encouraging or discouraging the participant to help the victim (strongly
agree or strongly disagree = 2, agree or disagree = 1). Scores were created by summing
the numerical responses on items. Higher scores indicated a higher degree of cultural
identification and an adherence by the participant to cultural values and norms of his or
her home country. The Chronbach’s alpha for the items was 0.74.
Reporting in sexual assault situations. Reporting in sexual assault situations was
measured by 10 items, taken from a scale created by Banyard (2008) that asked
participants to indicate whether they have engaged in a specific bystander behavior. The

61
items were adapted for this study to specify response behaviors performed by participants
during their matriculation in the United States. Participants read each behavior and then
checked the appropriate box for “yes,” “no,” or “not applicable – I had no reason or
opportunity to take this action.” Items included three substantial actions that involved
bringing the incident to the attention of formal authorities such as “I shared information
about an incident of sexual violence with authorities (i.e., police, school officials) in case
it would be helpful” and “Someone told me she had been sexually assaulted, so I called a
rape crisis center or talked to a school counselor for help.” Items also included three
smaller actions of help such as “I saw someone who seemed upset, so I asked if she was
okay or needed help” and “My friend said she had an unwanted sexual experience, and I
let her decide what the next steps, if any, would be.” Lastly, items also included four
well-intentioned but unhelpful bystander actions, such as “My friend said she had an
unwanted sexual experience, so I questioned her further to see if it really happened.”
This scale was used in three ways. First, those who selected “not-applicable” on all
10 items were removed from the analysis. Second, participants who indicated “no” for
being exposed to an opportunity but choosing not to take bystander action on any of the six
helpful items were coded as a non-reporter (reporter = 1, non-reporter = 2). Third, an
overall bystander behavior score was created by summing the six helpful actions that the
participants said they performed. Higher scores indicated a higher amount of reporting
behavior (i.e., bystander action) performed by the participant. A participant’s reporting
behavior – the dependent variable -- was used to answer research questions 1 and 2.
Further, based on the results of the pilot-test, the choice of “not applicable – I had no

62
reason or opportunity to take this action” was placed in the first column to ensure that
participants would base their responses on actual behavior and not on hypothetical
situations as in the previous question set.
Factors influencing reporting. To address research question 3, the survey
presented 22 cultural, institutional, and relationship factors that appeared to influence a
bystander’s decision to report in sexual assault situations. These factors were determined
based on the review of literature and conversations with experts on sexual assault. For
example, factors that may encourage or inhibit reporting included the participant’s family
or cultural values, the participant’s ability to communicate in English to police or campus
officials, the availability of anonymous reporting, and the presence an illegal drug use
policy. Each factor was presented as a statement that possibly encouraged or prevented
the participant from helping a victim. Participants indicated on a Likert scale whether
they (a) strongly agreed, (b) agreed, (c) disagreed, or (d) strongly disagreed. Based on
the pilot-test, factors were clustered according to whether they were found in the
literature to be facilitators or barriers to reporting. One exception to the clustering is that
the three statements about the influence a participant’s cultural values have on helping
were placed in the subsection of factors encouraging reporting, although the literature
suggests that cultural values could also discourage reporting. Items pertaining to who the
victim is and who the perpetrator is in relation to the participant were placed in a third
subsection. In addition, participants were allowed to list additional factors that would
influence their reporting in sexual assault situations.

63
Data Collection
The researcher obtained approval from the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board to conduct this study. Then, the researcher secured
permission from the private research institution’s Office of Student Outcomes Research,
which was facilitated by the executive director of the Office of International Students.
The researcher also obtained permissions and assistance from the executive vice
president of the management institute. An online survey was used because of the remote
location of the researcher relative to the potential participants.
To disseminate the online survey, an email message -- sent by a staff member of
each institution on behalf of the researcher -- included information about the study, a
request for participation, and the link to the online survey instrument. The email advised
participants that their responses would not require any identifiable information, and that
they could skip questions they did not wish to answer or could end their participation at
any time. The survey was accessible for 24 hours a day for two weeks in November 2009
via the online SurveyMonkey software application. After two weeks, a follow-up email
was sent to remind participants who had not responded that the survey was open for
another two-week period.
The survey took participants approximately 15 minutes to complete. All
responses from completed surveys were exported into SPSS 16.0 for statistical analysis.
The participants were instructed that completing all or part of the online survey indicated
their consent.

64
Data Analysis
This study describes the characteristics of international college student bystanders
who report in sexual assault situations and describes factors that influence their decision
to report. First, the numbers of participants in the sample who did and did not complete
the survey are reported.
Next, to answer research question 1, the researcher removed participants who
answered not applicable to all of the bystander action questions. Then the researcher
separated participants who reported from those who chose not report based on participant
responses to the bystander behavior scale. Then, for each group (reporters and non-
reporters), Chi-square, t-test and analyses of variance (ANOVA) were used to produce
descriptive statistics that include frequencies, means, and standard deviations of each
independent variable (i.e., gender, country of origin, degree of cultural identification,
length of time in the United States, and English language proficiency). Specifically,
gender was measured as a categorical score (i.e., male = 1, female = 2). A Chi-square
was calculated to compare the sample to the source data. Also, a t-test for independent
samples was computed to compare the means of reporting behavior, as determined by
scores on the bystander behavior scale, for both groups (male and female).
Country of origin was also measured as a categorical score, aggregating data into
regional groupings such as Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, the
Middle East, North America, and Oceania (Office of International Services, 2008), and
finally collapsing data into two groups – Asia and all others. The length of time in the

65
United States variable was measured as a continuous score. Data were aggregated into
two groups – less than one year and all others.
Degree of cultural identification and self-reported English proficiency were
measured as continuous scores. On each of these two variables, an ANOVA was
conducted to explore the differences between group means on one dependent variable
(reporting). ANOVA is the statistical test selected for these variables because there is
one factor being examined (i.e., group membership based on a specific demographic
characteristic), and there are more than two groups within each of these factors (Salkind,
2008). The criterion for determining statistical significance in each of these tests was p <
.05.
To answer research question 2, the researcher utilized the coding from the
previous question for the independent variables. A multiple regression was conducted to
examine the relationship between these variables in predicting participants’ reporting
behavior. The criterion for determining statistical significance was p < .05.
Lastly, to answer research question 3, the researcher coded participants’ responses
according to the participant’s agreement with statements about factors that were found in
the literature to be facilitators or barriers to reporting. Participants indicated on a Likert
scale whether they (a) strongly agreed = 1, (b) agreed = 2, (c) disagreed = 3, or (d)
strongly disagreed = 4. Based on this numeric scale, the means and standard deviations
for each factor were computed, and the factors in each of the three sections (facilitators to
reporting, barriers to reporting, and bystander relationship to the victim and perpetrator)
were ranked according to their mean scores.

66
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Introduction
This chapter reports the findings of a study of international student bystanders in
sexual assault situations, answering the three research questions. First, this study
attempts to describe the characteristics of international college student bystanders who
report and who do not report in sexual assault situations with regard to gender, country of
origin, degree of cultural identification, length of time in the United States, English
language proficiency, social support, experience as a victim, and intention to return
home. Second, this study examines the relationship between these variables in predicting
participants’ bystander behavior. Finally, the study outlines the cultural, institutional,
and relationship factors that the participants perceive as being facilitators or barriers to
reporting. Data from the Survey of International Student Bystanders in Sexual Assault
Situations were analyzed using SPSS 16.0.
The chapter begins with a brief description of the sample, including online survey
response rates and the process for eliminating unusable responses as well as the variables
and codes used during the analysis. Then each research question is explained with data
tables where appropriate and narrative explanations of significant findings.
Description of the Sample
The participants in this study were self-identified non-immigrant international
students in the United States as well as graduates who were formerly non-immigrant
international students studying in the United States. The online survey was disseminated

67
in November 2009 by campus officials at two institutions. The number of surveys
distributed was difficult to track; however, an approximate 1,500 surveys were
distributed. At the completion of the two two-week cycles of survey distribution, 165
survey responses were received for a response rate of 11%. The researcher omitted
survey data that were incomplete or data from participants who did not provide enough
data for the survey to be usable. Alumni were asked to retrospectively respond to
questions identical to the set of student question, thus enabling student and alumni
responses to be analyzed as a single data set.
As shown in Appendix C, the final sample consisted of 151 participants, with a
somewhat balanced representation of female (51.7%) and male (48.3%) respondents.
The majority of the sample came from Asian countries (88.4%), reported a low degree of
cultural identification (59.6%), studied in the United States less than a year (64.9%), and
reported above-average to high levels of English proficiency (61.1%). In addition, the
majority (56.3%) of the sample lived with a U.S. family. Only a small percentage of
participants (5.3%) experienced violence, and only 29.1% attended a program or event
related to sexual assault awareness, or used counseling services. A third of participants
(33.8%) were unsure about whether they would return home after their program of study,
while 47.7% of participants indicated they would definitely or likely return home. Lastly,
drawn from two different institutions, the sample is skewed by the large percentage
(87.4%) of participants from a non-traditional institution of higher education.
Two dependent variables and 15 independent variables were used throughout the
data analyses to compare the differences within the sample pertaining to participants’

68
reporting behavior. Appendix D describes these variables, including the scales used for
analysis. The alpha coefficient values are also indicated to confirm the reliability of each
scale that was either adapted or created for this study.
Research Questions and Results
Findings Related to Research Question 1: What Are the Characteristics of International
College Student Bystanders Who Report and Who Do Not Report in Sexual Assault
Situations According to Gender, Country of Origin, Degree of Cultural Identification,
Length of Time in the United States, English Language Proficiency, Social Support,
Experience as a Victim of Violence, Sexual Assault Awareness, and Intention to Return
Home?
Ten survey items regarding reporting in sexual assault were adapted for this study
from a scale created by Banyard (2008). These items asked participants whether they
have engaged in a specific bystander behavior. Items included three substantial helpful
bystander actions that involved bringing the incident to the attention of formal
authorities, three smaller helpful actions such as asking a victim if help was needed, and
four unhelpful actions. The Chronbach’s alpha for these survey items is 0.87, suggesting
a strong cohesion among items.
This bystander behavior scale was used in three ways. First, participants who
indicated that the entire list of bystander actions was not applicable (i.e., there was no
opportunity to take bystander action in a sexual assault situation) were removed from the
analyses. Based on this criterion, 22.5% (N=34) were removed. Second, the remaining
117 were sorted into reporters and non-reporters. To do this, the researcher coded

69
participants who indicated no for choosing not to take bystander action on any of the six
helpful items as non-reporters (reporter = 1, non-reporter = 2) because they were exposed
to the opportunity to assist but declined that opportunity. Of the 117, 52.1% (N=61)
indicated that they were reporters in sexual assault situations. The researcher also noted
that 63% of the reporters indicated performing one or more of the four unhelpful actions.
Third, an overall bystander behavior score was created by summing the helpful
actions that the participants reported they performed. Higher scores indicated a higher
amount of reporting behavior. Four items pertaining to the unhelpful actions were
excluded from the bystander behavior score to ensure scale reliability (alpha=0.75).
Participants’ reporter status and bystander behavior scores were compared to explore
group differences for the independent variables of this study.
Gender. The survey item for the participant’s gender utilized a dichotomous
response score, either male or female. Of the full sample, 51.7% of the participants were
female (N=77), and 48.3% (N=72) were male. The population for this study comprised
two institutions, and the gender breakdown varied between the two institutions, with 48%
male and 52% female at the first institution, and 62% male and 38% female at the second
institution. To compare the sample with the source of the data, the researcher derived
expected values for gender for the population as a whole by multiplying the percentage of
each gender at each institution by the percentage that responded from each institution. In
doing so, the result for gender in the population was an even split (50% male and 50%
female).

70
The Chi-square statistic was calculated for gender of the sample. The comparison
indicated that the observed value for gender was not significantly different from the
expected value since χ
2
(1, N=117) = 0.419, p=0.518. The researcher also explored
differences in bystander reporting behavior between male and female participants by
calculating the independent samples t-test to compare means of the two groups. The t-
test indicated no significant difference in bystander reporting behavior between male
participants (M=5.29, SD=3.016) and female participants [(M=5.40, SD=3.109); t(113)
=-.191, p=.849].
Country of origin. In the country of origin survey item, the participants wrote in
their country. Due to the small sample size, the researcher aggregated the country data
first into regional groupings. To create a group large enough for analysis, the researcher
further aggregated the data into two groups -- Asia (88.4%, N=130) and all other
countries (11.6%, N=17). In the population, 89.5% are from Asia and 10.5% are from
other countries. To derive this population, the researcher multiplied the percentage of the
categories of Asia and other country at each institution by the percentage that responded
from each institution.
The Chi-square statistic was calculated for the country of origin variable between
the sample and its population. The comparison showed that the sample was not
statistically significant from its population as χ
2
(1, N=147)=0.177, p=0.674. The t-test
was conducted to compare the participants from Asia with participants from other
countries by bystander reporting behavior. The t-test showed a significant difference in
reporting behavior between the group from Asia (M=5.66, SD=2.971) and the group from

71
other countries [(M=2.27, SD=2.533); t(110) =3.40, p<.05]. For reporters (N=59), the t-
test also showed a significant difference in the reporting behavior between participants
from Asia (M=6.61, SD=3.365) and participants from other countries [(M=2.12,
SD=2.80); t(57) =3.571, p=.001]. That is, participants from Asia were more likely to
intervene to assist a victim of sexual assault than participants from non-Asian countries.
For non-reporters (N=53), the t-test indicated no significant difference in reporting
behavior between the participants from Asia and the participants from other countries.
Degree of cultural identification. Three survey items measured the extent to
which participants’ cultural values influenced their reporting in sexual assault situations.
The cultural value survey items included seeking help from formal authorities, discussing
sexual violence, and handling problems. Participants were asked to use a 4-point Likert
scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree), and responses were coded according to the
strength of cultural values in encouraging or discouraging the participant to help the
victim (strongly agree or strongly disagree = 2, while agree or disagree = 1). Scores were
created by summing the numerical responses on items, with scores ranging from 3 to 6,
and higher scores indicated a higher degree of cultural identification. The Chronbach’s
alpha for the composite score is 0.74.
The mean and standard deviation of the cultural identification composite score
were calculated for the entire sample (N=148, M=3.68 and SD=1.017). Then, the t-test
was conducted to compare mean scores of the reporters (M=3.81, SD=1.115) and non-
reporters [(M=3.64, SD=.962); t(112) =.857, p=.393]. No significant difference in
cultural identification scores was found between the two groups.

72
As shown in Table 1, reporter-participants were sorted into four groups according
to degree of cultural identification. The majority of reporter-participants (59.8%, N=67)
indicated a low degree of cultural identity. These participants answered the questions
about the influence their cultural values had on help-seeking, discussing sexual violence,
and handling problems by simply agreeing or disagreeing with each statement without
indicating strong feelings regarding any of the statements.
Table 1 Bystander Reporting Composite Scores by Cultural Identification Composite
Groups
Cultural ID Composite M N SD f
3 (low cultural ID) 3.72 67 1.85 59.8%
4 (moderately low cultural ID) 3.48 23 1.86 20.5%
5 (moderately high cultural ID) 2.12 8 1.73 7.1%
6 (high cultural ID) 5.21 14 1.12 12.5%
Total 3.74 112 1.88 100%

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to explore the variability
between participants’ bystander reporting scores and their cultural identification based on
their cultural identification composite score. ANOVA results showed a significant
difference in reporting behavior between groups as F (3,108) = 5.625, p=.001. A post-
hoc analysis using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference test (HSD) revealed that the
mean scores for cultural identification for moderately high and high cultural
identification groups were significantly different (p=.001). Likewise, means scores were
also significantly different between the high cultural identification group and both the

73
moderately low cultural identification group (p=.024) as well as the low cultural
identification group (p=.024). Therefore, the difference in reporting scores for the high
cultural identification group is due to the participants’ degree of cultural ID, and
participants who felt strongly about all three survey items (i.e., their cultural values
influencing seeking help from formal authorities, discussing sexual violence, and
handling problems) intervened the most in sexual assault situations.
Length of time in the United States. One survey item measured a participant’s
length of time in the United States. Participants had six options: “Less than 1 year,” “1 to
2 years,” “3 to 4 years,” “5 to 6 years,” “7 to 8 years,” and “9 or more years.” The
majority (64.9%) of participants studied in the United States less than a year. Due to the
small sample size the researcher aggregated data into two groups – “less than one year”
and all others. The Chi-square was conducted for the length of time in the United States
variable, comparing the sample and its population. The comparison showed that χ
2
(1,
N=117) = 13.00, p<.05, indicating with significance that the sample was not equally
distributed. For reporters, the Chi-square [ χ
2
(1, N=61) = 3.689, p=.06] indicated no
significant difference in length of time in the United States. However, for the non-
reporters, the Chi-square [ χ
2
(1, N=56) = 10.286, p=.001] showed a significant difference
as most of the non-reporters studied in the United States for less than one year. An
independent samples t-test found no statistical difference in the reporting behavior of
participants who studied in the United States for less than a year and those who studied in
the United States for a year or longer.

74
English language proficiency. Three survey items asked participants to use a 5-
point Likert scale to rate their English fluency, comfort with using English, and
frequency of English use. Initially, a composite English proficiency score was created by
summing the responses to the three questions, with a higher score indicating a higher
level of English proficiency. The Chronbach’s alpha for these measures as reported in a
study by Yeh and Inose (2003) is 0.78, which was also confirmed by the alpha coefficient
based on the data in this study. However, while 0.78 is an acceptable alpha, the removal
of the item on the participant’s frequency of English use produced a higher alpha of 0.85,
suggesting a stronger cohesion among items. Further, the frequency of use item does not
take context into consideration as living and studying in the United States require the
frequent use of English by international students. The researcher consequently removed
the item on frequency of use. A composite English proficiency score was created by
summing scores on the participant’s perception of English fluency and comfort with
using English.
English proficiency scores for the entire group of participants ranged from 3 to 10
(N=149, M=7.82, SD=2), with a higher composite score indicating a higher level of
perceived English proficiency. Most participants (61.1%, N=91) reported above-average
to high levels of English proficiency. An independent samples t-test found no statistical
differences in English proficiency between reporters (M=8.00, SD=2.008) and non-
reporters [(M=7.40, SD=1.987); t(113)=1.608, p=.111].
Social support. To measure social support, the researcher asked participants to
indicate with whom they lived utilizing a measure adapted from study by Lee (1981).

75
Living arrangements served as a proxy for the social support that might influence an
international student’s acculturation to the United States. Response choices included
U.S. family, U.S. student(s), international student(s) from another country, international
student(s) from the same country, spouse/children, or alone. Response categories were
not mutually exclusive; participants could mark all that applied. Most (60.7%) of the
reporters and non-reporters lived with a U.S. family.
The researcher attempted to assign values to each type of living arrangement to
create a summed score. However, because this scale did not yield an acceptable alpha,
the researcher instead analyzed each type of living arrangement as an independent
dichotomous variable, “lived with” or “did not live with.” The Chi-square statistic was
calculated to explore the relationship between each living arrangement and the
participants’ reporter status; however, no significant difference between reporters and
non-reporters was found.
Experience as a victim of violence. Participants indicated their experience as a
victim of violence using a dichotomous response score, “experienced” or “did not
experience.” Of the entire sample, only 5.3% (N=8) of the participants reported prior
experience as a victim. An independent samples t-test found no statistical significance in
reporting behavior between those who experienced violence (M=3.00, SD=2.345) and
those who did not [(M=3.75, SD=1.884); t(113) =-.857, p=.393.
Sexual assault awareness. The item for sexual assault awareness presented
participants with five opportunities for learning about sexual assault (education or
training program about sexual assault, on-campus counseling services, off-campus

76
counseling services, campus-wide special event about sexual assault, and other), and
participants could check all that applied. Of the full sample, only 26.5% (N=40) reported
attending a program or using a service related to sexual assault. The researcher was
unable to obtain an acceptable alpha when summing the number of programs or services
used by participants to create a composite score. Alternatively, the researcher considered
the choices within this item as independent variables. Next, because of the small sample
size, the researcher aggregated responses for education or training program about sexual
assault with responses for campus-wide special event about sexual assault, creating a
dichotomous variable for programs attended (attended or did not attend). The researcher
also aggregated responses for on-campus counseling services and off-campus counseling
services, creating a dichotomous variable for counseling services utilized (used or did not
use).
Two Chi-square statistics were calculated to explore the relationship between the
participants’ reporter status and 1) their attendance at programs and events on sexual
assault and 2) their use of counseling services. There was no significant difference
between reporters and non-reporters according attendance at programs or events about
sexual assault awareness χ
2
(1, N=117) =.050, p=.824. Likewise, there was no significant
difference among reporters and non-reporters according to their use of counseling
services χ
2
(1, N=117) =1.016, p=.314.
Intention to return home. A participant’s intention to return home following his
or her program of study was measured as a continuous score by the likeliness that they
would remain permanently in the United States using a 5-point Likert Scale (1 =

77
definitely will, 5 = definitely not) as used by Barratt and Huba (1994). Responses were
reverse-coded to indicate the participants’ intention to return home, and higher scores
indicated a greater likelihood of returning home. Of the sample, 47.7% (N=72) indicated
that they were likely to or would definitely return home, while a third of the sample
(33.8%, N=51) were undecided about returning home. The mean and standard deviation
of the participants’ intention of returning home were calculated for the sample (N=151,
M=3.43 and SD=1.030). The t-test was conducted to compare mean scores of the
reporters (M=3.43, SD=1.117) and non-reporters [(M=3.41, SD=.910); t(115) =.935,
p=.935]. No significant difference in the participants’ intention to return home after
studying in the United States was found between the two groups.
Findings Related to Research Question 2: To What Extent Do Gender, Country of
Origin, Degree of Cultural Identification, Length of Time in the United States, English
Language Proficiency, Social Support, Sexual Assault Awareness, Experience as a
Victim, and Intention to Return Home Predict International Students’ Reporting Behavior
in Sexual Assault Situations?
A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship (at the
p<.05 level of significance) of the independent variables to the participants’ reporting
behavior. For this analysis, the researcher utilized the coding for independent variables
from research question 1, which are gender, country of origin, degree of cultural
identification, length of time in the United States, English language proficiency, social
support (six categorical variables), sexual assault awareness (two categorical variables),
and intention to return home. The experience as a victim of violence variable was

78
removed from the analysis due to the low count of reporters and non-reporters who
indicated being a victim (N=5). The dependent variable (also used in research question
1) is the participant’s bystander behavior composite score, which was created by
summing the six helpful behaviors that the participant reported having performed.
The standardized beta enabled a direct comparison of variables according to their
relative strengths of relationships. The R
2
is .26 (p<.01), which indicates that 26% of the
variance in bystander reporting scores is accounted for by a participant’s country and
degree of cultural identification.
As shown in Table 2, country and degree of cultural identification were
significantly correlated with bystander reporting behavior, with the country variable
Table 2 Summary of Regression Analysis for International College Student Variables
Predicting Reporting Behavior in Sexual Assault Situations
Variable B SEB β t Sig.
(Constant) 3.706 1.550 2.391 .019
Gender .209 .414 .055 .506 .614
Country (Asia/Non-Asia) -1.795 .678 -.287 -2.647 .010
Time in U.S. (<1 year/others) -.414 .436 -.102 -.949 .345
English Proficiency -.002 .105 -.002 -.018 .985
Social Support – U.S. Family -.312 .475 -.080 -.658 .512
Social Support – U.S. Student -1.206 .620 -.201 -1.947 .055
Social Support – International
Student (Other Country)
-.239 .485 -.050 -.494 .623
Social Support – Co-National
Student
-.169 .449 -.037 -.377 .707
Social Support – Family .371 .729 .057 .508 .612
Social Support – Alone .253 .600 .045 .422 .674
Sexual Assault Awareness –
Programs Attended
.149 .495 .029 .302 .763
Sexual Assault Awareness –
Counseling Used
-.057 .573 -.010 -.100 .920
Degree of Cultural Identification .369 .173 .206 2.137 .035
Intention to Return Home .347 .179 .189 1.939 .056
Note. R
2
= .26 (N = 117, p<.01)

79
having the greatest influence ( β = -.287). The negative value of the country variable
coefficient indicates that participants from other countries (where Asia = 1 and other
countries = 2) would yield less bystander reporting. Conversely, participants from Asia
would yield more bystander reporting behavior.
A smaller influence on bystander reporting behavior was found for the cultural
identification variable ( β = .206). The direction of influence for this partial correlation is
positive, indicating that greater cultural identification yields more bystander reporting.
As discussed in research question 1, participants with the highest degree of cultural
identification were more likely to assist a victim of sexual assault.
A marginally significant correlation (p<.055) was found between the social
support - U.S. student variable and bystander reporting. Because the correlation is
negative (β = -.201), the social support the participant received from living with a U.S.
student yielded less reporting behavior by the participant. Another marginally significant
correlation (p<.056) was found between bystander reporting and the intention to return
home variable. With a positive direction of influence ( β = .189), the coefficient indicated
that participants with a greater intention to return home would display more reporting
behavior.
Findings Related to Research Question 3: What Cultural, Institutional or Relationship
Factors Do International College Student Bystanders Perceive as Being Facilitators or
Barriers to Their Reporting in Sexual Assault Situations?
This research question attempted to identify factors that influence bystander
reporting by international college students. Participants were presented with a list of 22

80
statements, which are factors that appear to encourage or discourage bystander
intervention based on a review of the literature and conversations with experts on sexual
assault. Participants indicated the extent of their agreement with the statement on a 4-
point Likert scale. All statements involved a hypothetical situation of the participant
helping a sexual assault victim. On the survey, the 22 factors were divided into three
groups.
The first group of seven factors appeared in the literature to encourage bystander
reporting or were personal factors related to the participants’ cultural values or English
proficiency. Each statement in this group focused on whether the factor would encourage
the participant to help the hypothetical victim. The second group of nine factors
appeared in the literature to be barriers to helping a victim, and participants indicated the
extent to which the factor discouraged them from helping. The third group of six factors
focused on the relationship between the participant and the victim, and on the relationship
between the participant and the perpetrator. Like the first group of factors, participants
indicated the extent to which each factor encouraged them to help.
Facilitators to reporting. Participants indicated the extent to which factors
encouraged them to help a hypothetical victim of sexual assault. Based on participant
responses, the researcher computed frequencies and mean scores for each of the
facilitators. As Table 3 indicates, the most important influence that encouraged
participants to help a victim is being able to report anonymously (M=1.70, SD=.766),
followed by the ability to communicate in English (M=1.81, SD=.748), being able to
speak to a counselor on campus who is knowledgeable about their country and customs

81
(M=1.87, SD=.797), and being able to speak to formal authorities in their native language
(M=1.93, SD=.878). Cultural values regarding asking for help from formal authorities
(M=1.97, SD=.741), regarding how problems should be handed (M=2.03, SD=.654), and
regarding discussing sexual violence with others (M=2.17, SD=.742) were still facilitators
to helping for the majority of participants (78%, 78.4% and 70.5%, respectively), as
shown in Table 3. However, these cultural factors were ranked as the least influential
facilitators to bystander reporting.
Table 3 Facilitators to Bystander Reporting in Sexual Assault Situations: Percentages
and Mean Scores of Perceptions of International Students
Factor Strongly
Agree
%
(n)

Agree
%
(n)

Disagree
%
(n)
Strongly
Disagree
%
(n)

M

SD

Rank

Reporting anonymously

46.7
(70)

38.7
(58)

12.7
(19)

2.0
(3)

1.70

.766

1
st

Ability to communicate in English 36.7
(55)
48.7
(73)
12.0
(18)
2.7
(4)
1.81 .748 2
nd

Speaking to a counselor on campus
knowledgeable about country
and customs
36.7
(55)
41.3
(62)
20.0
(30)
2.0
(3)
1.87 .797 3
rd

Speaking to a police officer or
school official in native
language
38.5
(57)
33.1
(49)
25.0
(37)
3.4
(5)
1.93 .878 4
th

Cultural values regarding asking
for help from formal authority
(e.g., police, school officials)
26.7
(40)
51.3
(77)
20.0
(30)
2.0
(3)
1.97 .741 5
th

Cultural values regarding how
problems should be handled
18.9
(28)
59.5
(88)
20.9
(31)
.7
(1)
2.03 .654 6
th

Cultural values regarding
discussing sexual violence
with others
16.1
(24)
54.4
(81)
25.5
(38)
4.0
(6)
2.17 .742 7
th

Barriers to reporting. For these survey items, participants indicated the extent to
which factors discouraged them from helping a hypothetical victim of sexual assault.
The researcher computed frequencies and mean scores for each of the barriers. As Table
4 indicates, the most important factor that would discourage participants from helping a

82
victim is the risk of being physically hurt by helping (M=2.14, SD=.836), which had
nearly the same level of influence as the possibility of making the wrong decision to help
and embarrassing themselves (M=2.17, SD=.721), the possibility of embarrassing the
victim by intervening (M=2.28, SD=.787), and the possibility of making the wrong
decision and getting into trouble (M=2.29, SD=.717). The possibility of stirring up
trouble (M=2.36, SD=.851) was also a barrier indicated by the majority of participants, as
indicated in Table 4.
Table 4 Barriers to Bystander Reporting in Sexual Assault Situations: Percentages and
Mean Scores of Perceptions of International Students
Strongly
Agree
%
(n)

Agree
%
(n)

Disagree
%
(n)
Strongly
Disagree
%
(n)

M

SD

Rank

Possibility of getting physically
hurt by helping

23.3
(35)

44.7
(67)

26.7
(40)

5.30
(8)

2.14

.836

1
st

Possibility of making the wrong
decision to help when
nothing was wrong and
embarrassing myself
14.7
(22)
57.3
(86)
24.0
(36)
4.0
(6)

2.17 .721 2
nd

Possibility of embarrassing the
victim
14.0
(21)
50.7
(76)
28.7
(43)
6.7
(10)
2.28 .787 3
rd

Possibility of making the wrong
decision about how to help
and getting into trouble
12.0
(18)
50.7
(76)
34.0
(51)
3.3
(5)
2.29 .717 4
th

Possibility of stirring up trouble 13.9
(21)
47.0
(71)
28.5
(43)
10.6
(16)
2.36 .851 5
th

Possibility others might think I
am too sensitive and
overreacting
10.7
(16)
36.7
(55)
44.0
(66)
8.7
(13)
2.51 .801 6
th

Possibility of violating the
campus illegal drug use
policy
12.0
(18)
24.7
(37)
44.70
(67)
18.7
(28)
2.70 .910 7
th

Possibility of not being able to
concentrate on school work
8.7
(13)
26.7
(40)
46.7
(70)
18.0
(27)
2.74 .855 8
th

Possibility of violating the
campus alcohol policy
8.0
(12)
24.0
(36)
52.0
(78)
16.0
(24)
2.76 .817 9
th

While factors regarding embarrassing oneself or the victim topped the list of
barriers, factors related to violations of school policies emerged at the bottom of the list.
These least influential factors included the possibility of violating the campus illegal drug

83
use policy (M=2.70, SD=.910), the possibility of not being able to concentrate on school
work (M=2.74, SD=.855), and the possibility of violating the campus alcohol policy
(M=2.76, SD=.817).
Bystander relationship to the victim and perpetrator. Participants indicated the
extent to which factors pertaining to their relationship to the victim and perpetrator
encouraged them to help a hypothetical victim of sexual assault. The researcher
computed frequencies and mean scores of participant responses. Not surprisingly,
assisting a victim who is a friend (M=1.23, SD=.454) had a very strong influence on
encouraging the participant to help. Similarly, assisting when the victim is an
acquaintance (M=1.74, SD=.640), when the perpetrator is a stranger (M=1.79, SD=.762),
or when the perpetrator is an acquaintance (M=1.89, SD=.667) also encouraged
participants to help the victim. Assisting when the perpetrator a friend (M=1.93,
SD=.724) or when the victim is a stranger (M=2.12, SD=.788) were considered by
participants to be the least influential factors. However, as Table 5 shows, the majority
Table 5 Bystander Relationship to the Victim and Perpetrator in Reporting:
Percentages and Mean Scores of Perceptions of International Students

Factor
Strongly
Agree
%
(n)

Agree
%
(n)

Disagree
%
(n)
Strongly
Disagree
%
(n)

M

SD

Rank

Victim is a friend

78.1
(118)

20.5
(31)

1.3
(2)

0
(0)

1.23

.454

1
st

Victim is an acquaintance

36.4
(55)
54.3
(82)
8.6
(13)
0.7
(1)
1.74 .640 2
nd

Perpetrator is a stranger

38.0
(57)
48.0
(72)
10.7
(16)
3.3
(5)
1.79 .762 3
rd

Perpetrator is an acquaintance

26.7
(40)
58.7
(88)
13.3
(20)
1.3
(2)
1.89 .667 4
th

Perpetrator is a friend

28.0
(42)
53.3
(80)
16.7
(25)
2.0
(3)
1.93 .724 5
th

Victim is a stranger

22.8
(34)
45.0
(67)
29.5
(44)
2.7
(4)
2.12 .788 6
th

84
(81.3%) of participants indicated that they agree or strongly agree that they would help a
victim if the perpetrator were a friend. A smaller majority (67.8%) of participants
indicated that they agree or strongly agree that they would help if the victim were a
stranger.
Summary
The instrument, Survey of International Student Bystanders in Sexual Assault
Situations, consisted of two paths -- one question set for current students and one for
alumni. The question sets were equivalent; however, the alumni questions were
retrospectively worded. The researcher combined online survey data of both groups to
create a single dataset of 151 participants and used the dataset to answer the research
questions. This sample was representative of its population in terms of gender and
country of origin; however, a large majority of the sample was from a non-traditional
institution of higher education.
To answer research questions 1 and 2, the sample was sorted according to the six
helpful actions taken as a bystander. Participants who reported they had no opportunity
to take action on all of the survey items in the bystander action section were removed
from the analyses. The remaining 117 participants were then classified as a non-reporter
if they chose not to take one or more of the six helpful actions. All others were classified
as reporters (i.e., responsive bystanders). About half of the sample was classified as
reporters, which is much higher than the 5% rate of victim reporters found in the
literature. Possible reasons for this discrepancy will be discussed in the next chapter.

85
A significant difference in reporting behavior was found between participants
from Asia and other countries, with participants from Asia showing a higher amount of
reporting behavior. This peculiar finding also contradicted the literature and will be
discussed in the next chapter. In terms of length of time in the United States variable, a
significant difference was found. The sample was not equally distributed; the majority of
participants studied for less than one year. In addition, a significant result was found for
non-reporters, who were students for less than one year.
Most of the participants reported above-average to high levels of English
proficiency, although no significant differences in English were found between reporters
and non-reporters. Most participants lived with a U.S. family, which would suggest
access to social support for acculturation to the United States; however, there were no
significant differences in the social support received by reporters and non-reporters.
Almost half of the participants were definitely or likely to return home, and a third were
not sure, but no significant differences were found between reporters and non-reporters
based on their intention to return home.
Participants were recruited from two very different campus communities, each of
which offer different outreach services related to sexual assault awareness. For example,
the large research institution provides campus-wide sexual assault awareness programs
and events as well as on- and off-campus counseling, while the non-traditional institution
only provides on-campus counseling and referrals to off-campus counseling. Only about
a fourth of participants indicated attending a sexual assault awareness programs or

86
utilized on- or off-campus counseling services. However, the reasons for this limited
attendance and utilization are unclear.
Most of the participants reported a low degree of cultural identification. While no
significant differences in the degree of cultural identification were found between
reporter and non-reporter categories, this study found a significant difference between the
bystander behavior composite scores of participants in the high cultural identification
group and the scores of those in the low, moderately low, and moderately high cultural
identification groups.
In examining the relationship of all the independent variables to predict bystander
action, this study found that 26% of the variance in bystander reporting scores is
accounted for by the participant’s country of origin and degree of cultural identification.
The country of origin had the highest predictive value on bystander reporting ( β = -.287),
followed by cultural identification ( β = .206), social support by a U.S. student ( β = -.201),
and intention to return home ( β = .189). That is, participants from Asia, participants with
the highest degree of cultural identification, and participants who intended to return home
were more likely to intervene, and participants who lived with a U.S. student were less
likely to assist a victim of sexual assault.
In answer to research question 3, 22 facilitators and barriers to reporting were
divided into three groups and ranked. First, the study found that being able to report
anonymously was the most influential facilitator to reporting. As is the case of an
anonymous reporting option for victims, the option for bystanders to report anonymously
helps the bystander avoid possible retaliation and possible punishment for violating rules,

87
such as those regarding the use of alcohol or drugs. Also topping the list of the seven
facilitators of reporting was a cluster of communication-related factors that are under the
control of institutions, which can provide an environment conducive to bystander
reporting. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed
that their English proficiency would encourage them to report – a finding consistent with
the English proficiency demographic measure in the survey. However, despite an
apparent confidence in their English proficiency, participants also noted that services
appropriate to international students such as counselors knowledgeable about their
country and customs as well as being able to speak in their native language to formal
authorities would encourage them to assist a victim. Factors related to cultural values,
while still facilitators to reporting for the majority of the participants, rounded out the
bottom of the ranking.
From a list of nine factors that may discourage the participant from assisting a
victim, the possibility of getting physically hurt was the most influential barrier to
helping a victim. The barriers that emerged at the top of the list pertain to the
embarrassment of the participant or victim, suggesting the influence of social norms on
bystander behavior. This study also includes a ranking of six factors about the
relationship of the participant to the perpetrator and the relationship of the participant to
the victim. Not surprisingly, assisting a victim who is a friend has a very strong influence
on encouraging bystander action. However, assisting a victim who is a stranger has the
least influence on bystander action – even being outranked by all the perpetrator factors.
Overall, an in-group/out-group pattern emerged where participants were more

88
encouraged to help if the victim were an in-group member (i.e., a friend or acquaintance)
than an out-group member (i.e., a stranger). Conversely, participants were more
encouraged to help a victim if the perpetrator were an out-group member than an in-
group member.
The next chapter discusses and connects these findings to the literature on
bystander reporting and international college students. The next chapter also includes
limitations of the current study, recommendations for future research, and
recommendations for how campus administrators might encourage responsive bystander
behavior among international students.

89
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this study provide information about the reporting experiences
and characteristics of international student bystanders in sexual assault situations that can
help U.S. institutions of higher education effectively serve this burgeoning population.
The findings also support efforts to increase the overall reporting of sexual assaults on
college campuses to get victims the help that they need.
Summary of Findings
This chapter reports the findings of a study of international student bystanders in
sexual assault situations, answering the three research questions. In some instances, the
findings were consistent with literature regarding the pattern of reporting by domestic
college students. In other instances, unexpected results emerged, leading to questions for
future studies.
Findings Related to Research Questions 1 and 2
First, this study attempted to describe the characteristics of international college
student bystanders who report and who do not report in sexual assault situations with
regard to gender, country of origin, degree of cultural identification, length of time in the
United States, English language proficiency, social support, experience as a victim, and
intention to return home after their program of study. Second, this study examined the
extent to which these variables predicted reporting behavior by international college
students in sexual assault situations in the United States.

90
The complexity of characterizing bystander reporting behavior surfaced during
the process of separating the reporters from the non-reporters for analysis. First, about
half of the sample (52.1%) indicated that they took action as a bystander during an
incident of sexual assault, which is much higher than the 5% rate of formal reporting by
victims documented in previous studies (Fisher et al., 2003; Koss et al., 1987; Tjaden &
Thoennes, 2000). This discrepancy may be due to the lack of a clear definition of sexual
assault (a limitation that will be discussed later) or the inclusion of informal reporting on
the list of interventions. While past studies (Fisher et al., 2003; Koss et al., 1987; Tjaden
& Thoennes, 2000) focused specifically on the reporting of rape by victims to formal
authorities, the current study cast a wider net as it included the reporting of any form of
sexual assault by bystanders to both formal and informal authorities, based on the work
of Banyard, Moynihan, and Plante (2007). Under these circumstances, the percentage of
reporters in this study approaches the finding by Fisher et al. (2003) that seven out of 10
cases of victimization are reported informally, such as to friends or family.
Another reason that the percentage of reporters versus non-reporters varies is that
the researcher asked participants to indicate when a bystander action was not applicable.
By adding this third choice to the original bystander action measure used by Banyard
(2008), the current study was able to differentiate participants who perceived they did not
have any reason to intervene from those who were given the opportunity to intervene but
declined that opportunity. This distinction is important because it allowed the researcher
to remove participants who indicated “not applicable” on all bystander actions. It could
be argued that the participants who were removed from the analysis are non-reporters in

91
actuality because they might not have noticed an event, which is the first step of the
bystander framework (Berkowitz, 2008; Latané & Darley, 1970). However, such a
distinction is difficult to confirm and is beyond the scope of this study. Instead, the study
focused on participants who chose not to perform a helpful action because it indicated an
interruption in the participant’s progression through the stages of bystander behavior
(Berkowitz, 2008; Latané & Darley, 1970). That is, non-reporters failed to interpret the
situation as a problem, did not feel responsible for getting involved, or could not
determine how to intervene. For the purposes of this study, non-reporters are those who
always or sometimes chose not to intervene.
Second, the complexity of characterizing bystander reporting behavior was also
evident in this study’s use of the bystander behavior score, which was an alternate way to
examine the bystander actions of the participants. Whereas the criterion for categorizing
participants was non-intervention, the bystander behavior score summed and focused on
the helpful behaviors performed by the participants. Taken together, the categorization
and bystander behavior scores revealed that many participants were unclear about which
interventions were helpful and which were not. Among the reporter participants, for
example, 63% indicated the use of actions unhelpful to the victim. This finding is
consistent with the results of other studies (Ahrens, 2006; Dunn et al., 1999), which
found victims frequently encounter support providers who are unsure how to respond or
who respond in a manner that is well-intentioned but unhelpful.
A significant difference in reporting behavior was found between participants
from Asia and other countries, with participants from Asia possessing a higher degree of

92
reporting behavior. This finding was a surprising contradiction with the literature, which
suggests that Asian students would be less likely to intervene in a sexual assault situation
because of tendencies of Asian students to refrain from seeking help, to accept rape-
supportive attitudes that minimize the seriousness of rape (J. Lee et al., 2005; Yamawaki,
2007), and to possess ingrained cultural values that would discourage sexual assault
reporting (Dussich, 2001; Luo, 2000). Additionally, Hofstede’s (2005) use of nationality
to classify cultural differences suggests that those from Asian countries, which are
considered masculine and collectivist, would be inhibited from discussing sex and from
coming forward, respectively. There are several possible reasons that this finding of high
reporting by Asian participants runs counter to literature. First, the unexpected finding
may be the result of collapsing country data and including in the Asia group countries
such as Korea and Thailand, which are classified as feminine by Hofstede (2001).
According to Hofstede (2001), sex is less of a taboo topic in feminine countries. Another
reason for the unexpected finding is, like the sample in Hofstede’s study, the literature on
sexual assault reporting by Asians do not specifically include Asian participants who are
sojourners in the United States. That is, the earlier studies utilized samples of Asian
participants located in Asia (Dussich, 2001; Luo, 2000; Yamawaki, 2007) and a sample
of participants who are ethnically Asian but not necessarily international student
sojourners (J. Lee et al., 2005). Moreover, the majority (80.7%) of reporters and non-
reporters indicated a low to moderately low degree of cultural identity, suggesting that
the social norms international students follow in the United States may be different than

93
at home. Also, the study found that participants with the highest degree of cultural
identification were most likely to assist a victim.
No significant differences were found between reporters and non-reporters on
either of the two sexual assault awareness variables – (a) attendance at an event or
program about sexual assault awareness, or (b) utilization of counseling services.
However, of the sample, less than a third of participants indicated that they attended a
sexual assault awareness event or program, or used counseling services. This finding
suggests that outreach regarding sexual assault awareness among the sample is limited.
The most plausible reason for low utilization of programs or counseling services related
to sexual assault awareness is that the sample was largely comprised of participants from
a non-traditional institution, which only provides on-campus counseling and referrals to
off-campus counseling. However, according to the literature, even when campus
resources are available, international students’ lack of awareness of campus resources,
doubt about the resources’ appropriateness for them, and questions about the affordability
of such resources limit help-seeking (J. Lee & Rice, 2007; Mori, 2000; S. Poyrazli &
Grahame, 2007). Further, studies have found that counseling services are significantly
underused (Futa et al., 2001; Mori, 2000; Yoon & Jepsen, 2008).
Although no significant differences were found between reporters and non-
reporters based on English proficiency, most participants indicated above-average to high
levels of English proficiency. This finding suggests that programs and services about
sexual assault can be delivered in English.

94
The majority of participants studied in the United States for less than a year,
which is unusual for international students. The reason for this finding is that a large
majority of the sample was from a non-traditional institution, which offers academic
programs of less than a year in length. From a student adjustment standpoint,
international students with longer residences in the United States tended to report better
adjustment to U.S. cultural norms (Wilton & Constantine, 2003). Limited opportunity for
adjustment might be a reason that significantly more of the non-reporters studied in the
United States for less than one year than for a longer period. That is, these non-reporters
may not have had adequate time to develop an awareness of and comfort in using
resources that support their efficacy as bystanders.
Finally, in answer to question 2, a multiple regression – conducted to predict
bystander reporting behavior from the variables tested – showed that 26% of the variance
in bystander action can be explained by the participant’s country of origin and cultural
identification. As discussed earlier, participants from Asia and participants with the
highest degree of cultural identification were more likely to intervene. A participants’
intention to return home held a marginally significant influence on bystander reporting,
with participants who intended to return home being more likely to intervene. The
literature indicates that international students’ uncertainty about returning home may add
to acculturative adjustment stressors and academic demands (Mori, 2000; Thomas &
Althen, 1989), which might prevent students from taking bystander action. Conversely,
the certainty of these students’ intention to return home may alleviate the pressure
students as bystanders face as they weigh the costs and benefits of intervening.

95
Consequently, this removal of stress may enable the student to feel responsible for taking
action.
A second marginally significant correlation was found between reporting
behavior and social support from a U.S. student. The direction of influence was negative,
indicating that participants who lived with a U.S. student were less likely to assist a
victim of sexual assault. Some studies found that an international student’s successful
cultural adjustment is linked to his or her interaction with the host culture (Al-Sharideh &
Goe, 1998; Chapdelaine & Alexitch, 2004; Senel Poyrazli et al., 2004), which would
suggest that students who lived with a U.S. student would be more inclined to intervene.
However, this finding is difficult to explain because the measure used for this variable
does not examine the quantity or quality of support received by the international student.
Findings Related to Research Question 3
The current study outlines factors that international college students perceive to
be facilitators or barriers to assisting a victim. The ability of the bystander to report
anonymously ranked as the most important facilitator to reporting, which is consistent
with the literature on reporting by sexual assault victims (Karjane et al., 2002). For the
bystander, anonymous reporting addresses both the bystander’s fear of retaliation (i.e.,
personal harm) and of being in violation of rules, such as campus alcohol or drug
policies, or immigration policies.
The next important cluster of facilitators pertains to the ability of the participant
to effectively communicate the incident of sexual assault. The most influential in this
cluster is the ability to communicate in English, followed by speaking to a counselor

96
knowledgeable about the participant’s country and customs, and speaking to formal
authorities in one’s native language. This result is congruent with the challenges that
limit help-seeking by international students found in other studies, especially the doubt
about the resources’ appropriateness for international students and a perceived lack of
culturally knowledgeable counselors (J. Lee & Rice, 2007; Mori, 2000; S. Poyrazli &
Grahame, 2007). Specifically, one study found that students who experienced violence
kept silent out of fear that they would not be heard by authorities (J. Lee & Rice, 2007).
Thus, these communication facilitators, provided by formal authorities, could help to
reassure and support international students during the difficult task of reporting.
Clustered at the bottom of the list of facilitators, and of lesser influence to
bystander action, were the participants’ cultural values regarding help-seeking, handling
of problems, and discussing sexual violence with others. In comparing the frequencies of
responses of cultural value factors with the previously discussed facilitators, there is a
pattern of diminishing strength of agreement that the set of factors on cultural values
encourage helping a victim. Nonetheless, cultural values still facilitate reporting for the
majority of the participants.
For this sample, the most influential barrier to assisting a victim is the risk of
getting hurt by helping, followed by either embarrassing oneself or the victim, and
personally getting into trouble. For example, one qualitative study found that
international students who remain silent in the wake of victimization fear being deported
for stirring up trouble (J. Lee & Rice, 2007). Of lesser concern to the sample were being
in violation of the campus illegal drug use policy, being unable to concentrate on school

97
work, and being in violation of the campus alcohol policy. Previous research on
bystanders has found that barriers to reporting are based on fears that range from a lack of
support when attempting to intervene and negative reactions or comments from others, to
outright retaliation and physical and emotional harm (Berkowitz, 2008; Latané & Darley,
1970). With factors involving personal harm or being negatively perceived by others
topping the list, this ranking of barriers to reporting suggests that social norms also
influence the bystander tendencies of international students.
In terms of the relationship of the participant to either the victim or perpetrator,
the most influential factor that would encourage the participant to help the victim is if the
victim were a friend. This factor was followed by the victim being an acquaintance. This
finding supports the results of a study by Levine et al. (2002) who found that bystanders
are likely to help victims who are described as in-group as opposed to out-group
members. Perhaps this may be a reason that helping a victim who is a stranger appears
last on the ranking, trumped even by the perpetrator being a friend of the participant. In
addition, open-ended responses in this survey suggest that there are nuances to the
bystander-victim relationship that may have a bearing on a bystander’s decision to
intervene. For example, such complexities include the victim’s willingness to accept
help, the victim’s credibility (e.g., “whether the victim really is a victim”), and the
victim’s ability to help herself. Another relationship factor cited by open-ended
responses is whether the relationship would allow the participant to readily assess the
complexity of the situation. One participant wrote, “If the victim is a stranger, I may

98
choose not to get deep inside the problem.” Another wrote, “Being a middle man (third
party) does not give an in-depth [understanding] of the happening.”
Implications for Practice
To the extent that this study’s findings can be generalized to other college
campuses, the findings from the current study provide several important
recommendations to those who work with international students, namely campus
administrators, health center providers, counselors, and police authorities. The cluster of
communication-related factors that topped the list of facilitators to reporting suggests that
institutions can take steps to create a bystander-friendly campus environment for
international students.
First, according to the results of this study, the most influential factor that
encourages bystander reporting is the ability of the bystander to report anonymously. An
anonymous reporting option addresses both a bystander’s fear of retaliation (i.e., personal
harm) and fear of being in violation of rules, such as campus alcohol or drug policies, or
immigration policies. So, if not already in place, institutions should implement an
anonymous reporting policy, which is also considered a promising practice that facilitates
reporting by sexual assault victims (Karjane et al., 2002). Moreover, while traditional
policies protect victims from being punished for being in violation of rules, such policies
are silent about protection for bystanders who help victims to come forward. Because
most sexual assault victims tell someone else (Fisher et al., 2003), institutions should
explore ways to extend protection and support to bystanders who report. In short, the
objective of an anonymous reporting option is to get assistance to the victim, even if she

99
declines the assistance or even if this policy does not lead to the apprehension of the
perpetrator.
Second, this study is based on the premise that a smooth acculturation process to
the U.S. will help international students be more amenable to taking bystander action. As
international students develop appropriate responses to live within the host-culture, so
too, must they build a repertoire of bystander responses to intervene safely and
appropriately. Given this study’s findings on the importance of social norms to
international students, administrators should ensure that training programs correct
incorrect norms held by international students pertaining to knowledge and attitudes
about sexual violence. This may involve addressing the complexities of other factors that
influence international students’ willingness to intervene, such as notions of victim
credibility and empowerment (i.e., her ability to help herself). Likewise, such training
may also involve teaching students how to identify a sexual assault and how to safely
intervene.
Third, because an overwhelming number of participants agreed or strongly agreed
that their English proficiency would encourage them to report, and that the majority of
participants indicated high levels of English, campus administrators should include
internationals students in all sexual assault awareness programming utilized by domestic
students. Using English to craft messages about sexual assault awareness may be
particularly important as limited campus resources might not allow for messages about
sexual assault to be developed in the native languages of all international students.

100
However, such programming and messages alone are not sufficient. The final
step in the intervention process is for the international student bystander to select a course
of action and take it (Berkowitz, 2008; Latané & Darley, 1970). To this end, institutions
should also provide support and services for international students who help victims to
come forward. Despite confidence in their English proficiency, participants noted that
services tailored to international students would encourage them to assist a victim. For
example, participants indicated that the availability of counselors knowledgeable about
various countries and customs would encourage helping a victim. In addition, being able
to speak to formal authorities in their native language would also encourage international
students to assist a victim. This may include the use of interpreters.
Once such services are in place for international students, making these services
known and ensuring their utilization by the international student population are also
important. Khoo and Abu-Rasain (1994) assert that because international students rarely
seek counseling assistance, counselors bear the responsibility of reaching out to
international students and of clearly explaining the services available to them.
The presence of international students brings cultural diversity as well as
financial, knowledge, and human resources to institutions of higher education. The
additional services for international students notwithstanding, administrators must weigh
the costs of allocating resources to fund sexual assault campaigns and training against
other pressing program priorities. To improve the experiences of international students,
administrators might consider building onto or strengthening existing sexual assault
awareness programs and services, and look into opportunities for collaboratively funding

101
programs. Because bystander programs address campus safety with a community
approach, it may be possible to garner support from international student groups, parent
and student advocate groups, local and state law enforcement agencies, and the federal
government.
Limitations
This study represents an initial foray into the bystander actions and experiences of
international students, and the results must be interpreted with caution for several
reasons. First, the demographic details of the study’s convenience sample may limit the
generalizability of the findings. For example, the sample in this study is small, consisting
largely of alumni who studied for less than a year and of students from Asia. The small
sample size also required the researcher to collapse cells for analysis. The two campus
communities from which participants were recruited are different, given the differences
in institution type and enrollment. At the management institute, for example,
international students are the majority, which is rare at other institutions of higher
education.
Second, the high rate of bystander action, which also indicates a high incidence
rate of sexual assault, was surprising. One possible reason is that the current study
utilized a broad definition of sexual assault, which was not defined on the survey
instrument. Thus, the participants were left with the task of defining sexual assault,
which ranges from unwanted sexual contact and threats of coercion to attempted and
completed rape (Baum & Klaus, 2005). In addition, because the study utilized a self-
report survey, the participants may not have honestly answered the survey due to social

102
desirability motives, or participants may have answered the bystander action section
hypothetically, following the pattern of the previous question set, which was based on a
hypothetical situation. In retrospect, an additional measure on whether the participant
knew a victim of sexual assault could have been used to verify whether the participant
who indicated taking a bystander action actually did.
Third, the measure on social support was difficult to analyze because each type of
support (i.e., living arrangement) had to be analyzed as an independent variable. The
measure was helpful in showing the type of support available to the participants (with
assumptions about how it may help acculturation). However, in retrospect, the survey
instrument should have included an alternative or additional measure to assess the extent
to which the participants have both access to Americans and co-nationals because a
combination of support is most beneficial to acculturation (Berry, 1997). A related
limitation is that the social support measure focused on the source of support instead of
on the quantity or quality of support received by the participant.
The measure on sexual assault awareness was limited to the events that
participants attended or used, and did not address the extent to which such programs and
services are available. Moreover, the combined sample from two institutions made this
variable difficult to analyze due to the varying availability of sexual assault awareness
programs and services at each institution.
Finally, this study takes a narrow view of culture, utilizing Hofstede’s cultural
values framework to discuss participants’ culture and cultural values. Future studies may
want to explore other axes for identification of culture. For example, an international

103
student’s ethnicity, socio-economic status, religion, age, level of education, and
immigrant status may also shape an international student’s values, beliefs, and norms,
and may lead to unique patterns of responses related to the variables in this study.
Future Research
This study provides a starting point for examining international college students
as bystanders in sexual assault situations. While this study focused on the participants’
experiences and characteristics that influenced assisting a victim, and on the factors that
might encourage or discourage them from reporting, as mentioned in the previous
section, future studies about international student bystanders might explore other aspects
of culture. In this study, facilitators and barriers to bystander action came from the
literature and not from the bystanders themselves. Because of this, future studies, might
explore the complexities of the factors perceived by students to be facilitators and
barriers to intervention. Further studies might also examine specific institutional types
and the availability of resources for international students at such institutions as well as
international students’ preferred methods for receiving sexual assault awareness
education and support.
This study built upon the measures used by Banyard (2008) and categorized
participants who indicated “not-applicable” to a bystander action as those not having the
opportunity to intervene. However, it is possible that participants did not notice an
incident of sexual assault -- the first step in the bystander framework -- due to their
beliefs and attitudes about sexual violence. Future studies might test the extent to which
this is so. In addition, this study focuses on participants’ prior experience as a victim of

104
any type of violence. Future studies might explore whether the type of violence,
specifically sexual assault, affects bystander action.
The findings of this study suggest that participants’ behavior is different in the
U.S. than at home. Future studies might explore the participants’ behavior in-depth,
perhaps with qualitative analysis that would provide comprehensive information about
the social norms that lead international students to intervene as bystanders. A qualitative
analysis in future studies would also help to counter the limitation in this study that
participants may have responded to the self-report survey in a socially desirable manner.
That is, a qualitative analysis may help to distinguish and separate socially desirable
responses from those that are not.
Lastly, this study measured the overall bystander behavior of participants. The
list of bystander actions presented to the participants was varied; it including formal and
informal interventions as well as substantive actions, such as accompanying a victim to a
rape crisis center, and smaller actions, such as asking someone who seems upset if she
was all right. The list also included common actions that were shown in the literature to
be well-intentioned but unhelpful to the victim. Future studies may want to examine
international students’ use of specific interventions.
Conclusion
To combat high rates of sexual assault and low rates of formal reporting,
bystander intervention training for sexual assault awareness has a small but promising
foothold on U.S. college campuses. To contribute to this effort, this study provides data
on the bystander characteristics and experiences of international college students – found

105
in the literature to be among of the least studied and understood populations on campuses
– in sexual assault situations. This study examined the variables of international students
who report and who do not report as well as factors that facilitate and block the reporting
process. It is hoped that the study helps campus administrators design reporting policies
and protocols as well as sexual assault awareness education materials and messages that
are appropriate and effective for use by all international students.

106
REFERENCES
Abarbanel, G. (2000). Understanding victims of drug-facilitated sexual assaults. In M. A.
LeBeau & A. Mozayani (Eds.), Drug-Facilitated Sexual Assault: A Forensic
Handbook: by Academic Press, 2001.
Adams-Curtis, L. E., & Forbes, G. B. (2004). College women's experiences of sexual
coercion: A review of cultural, perpetrator, victim, and situational variables.
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5(2), 91-122.
Ahrens, C. E. (2006). Being silenced: The impact of negative social reactions on the
disclosure of rape. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38(3-4), 263-
274.
Al-Sharideh, K. A., & Goe, W. R. (1998). Ethnic communities within the university: An
examination of factors influencing the personal adjustment of international
students. Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 699-725.
Andrade, M. S. (2009). The international student picture. In M. S. Andrade & N. W.
Evans (Eds.), International students: Strengthening a critical resource (pp. 1-24).
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Banyard, V. L. (2008). Measurements and correlates of pro-social bystander behavior:
The case of interpersonal violence. Violence and Victims, 23, 85-99.
Banyard, V. L., Eckstein, R. P., & Moynihan, M. M. (2009). Sexual violence prevention:
The role of stages of change. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, in press.
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.
Barratt, M. F., & Huba, M. E. (1994). Factors related to international undergraduate
students adjustment. College Student Journal, 28, 422-436.
Basirico, L. A., Cashion, B. G., Eshleman, J. R., & Morgan, D. (2009). Welcome to
Sociology. Redding, CA: Horizon Textbook Publishing.

107
Baum, K., & Klaus, P. (2005). Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005. Special Report.
National Crime Victimization Survey, 1995-2002. Violent Victimization of
College Students. U.S. Department of Justice.
Berkowitz, A. (2003). Applications of Social Norms Theory to Other Health and Social
Justice Issues. In H. W. Perkins (Ed.), The Social Norms Approach to Preventing
School and College Age Substance Abuse (pp. 259-279). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Berkowitz, A. (2004). The social norms approach: Theory, research and annotated
bibliography [Electronic Version], from www.alanberkowitz.com
Berkowitz, A. (2005). An overview of the social norms approach. In L. C. Lederman &
L. P. Stewart (Eds.), Changing the Culture of College Drinking: A Socially
Situated Health Communication Campaign (pp. 193-214). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press, Inc.
Berkowitz, A. (2006). Fostering Healthy Norms to Prevent Violence and Abuse: The
Social Norms Approach. from www.alanberkowitz.com
Berkowitz, A. (2008). Response ability: Transforming values into action by fostering
bystander interventions to promote health and social justice.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology,
46(1), 5-34.
Bochner, S. (Ed.). (1981). The Mediating person: Bridges between cultures Cambridge,
MA: Schenkman Publishing Co.
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault. (2004). 2004 report: Research on rape and
violence. Sacramento, CA: California Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
Carter, S. D. (2003). Sex, crime and campuses: Complying with federal reporting
requirements. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Texas Higher Education
Law Conference. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from
http://www.securityoncampus.org/schools/sex_crime_and_campuses/index.html

108
Chapdelaine, R., & Alexitch, L. (2004). Social skills difficulty: Model of culture shock
for international graduate students. Journal of College Student Development,
45(2), 167-184.
Church, A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 540-572.
Cox, L. (2006). Going home: Perceptions of international students on the efficacy of a
reentry workshop. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California,
2006). ProQuest Digital Dissertations database, AAT 3237190.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Dunn, P. C., Vail-Smith, K., & Knight, S. M. (1999). What date/acquaintance rape
victims tell others: A study of college student recipients of disclosure. Journal of
American College Health, 47(5), 213-219.
Dussich, J. P. J. (2001). Decisions not to report sexual assault: A comparative study
among women living in Japan who are Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and English-
speaking. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 45(3), 278-301.
Evans, N. W., Carlin, D. B., & Potts, J. D. (2009). Adjustment issues. In M. S. Andrade
& N. W. Evans (Eds.), International students: Strengthening a critical resource
(pp. 25-42). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Fabiano, P. M., Perkins, H. W., Berkowitz, A., Linkenbach, J., & Stark, C. (2003).
Engaging men as social justice allies in ending violence against women: evidence
for a social norms approach. Journal of American College Health, 52(3), 105-112.
Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college
women. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2003). Reporting sexual
victimization to the police and others: Results from a national-level study of
college women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(1), 6-38.

109
Foubert, J., & Newberry, J. T. (2006). Effects of two versions of an empathy-based rape
prevention program on fraternity men's survivor empathy, attitudes, and
behavioral intent to commit rape or sexual assault. Journal of College Student
Development, 47(2), 133-148.
Frese, B., Moya, M., & Megias, J. L. (2004). Social perception of rape: How rape myth
acceptance modulates the influence of situational factors. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 19(2), 143-161.
Futa, K. T., Hsu, E., & Hansen, D. J. (2001). Child sexual abuse in Asian American
families: An examination of cultural factors that influence prevalence,
identification, and treatment. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 8(2),
189-209.
Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hechanova-Alampay, R., Beehr, T. A., Christiansen, N. D., & Van Horn, R. K. (2002).
Adjustment and strain among domestic and international student sojourners: A
longitudinal study. School Psychology International, 23(4), 458-474.
Hillenbrand-Gunn, T. L. (2004). Acquaintance rape and male high school students: Can a
social norms intervention change attitudes and perceived norms? Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Missouri - Columbia, United States -- Missouri.
Retrieved March 24, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database.
(Publication No. AAT 3137710).
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions,
and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind
(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., & Itim International. (2009). Geerte Hofstede Cultural Dimensions.
Retrieved April 18, 2009, from http://www.geert-
hofstede.com/geert_hofstede_resources.shtml

110
Hunt, F. A. (2004). Female college survivors of sexual violence seeking help: A
qualitative exploration Ed.D. dissertation. University of Southern California,
United States -- California. Retrived November 9, 2007, from Dissertations &
Theses @ University of Southern California database. (Publication No. AAT
3145212).
Huston, T. L., Ruggiero, M., Conner, R., & Geis, G. (1981). Bystander intervention into
crime: A study based on naturally-occurring episodes. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 44(1), 14-23.
Institute of International Education. (2006). Personal Characteristics of International
Students, Selected Years 1976/77 - 2005/06 Open Doors 2006:Report on
International Educational Exchange from
http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=89209
Institute of International Education. (2008a). Open Doors 2008 "Fast Facts". Institute of
International Education.
Institute of International Education. (2008b). Open Doors frequently asked questions.
Retrieved April 11, 2009, 2009, from http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=25092
Karjane, H. M., Fisher, B., S., & Cullen, F. T. (2002). Campus sexual assault: How
America’s institutions of higher education respond. Retrieved October 2, 2008.
from http://www.hhd.org/products/mso44.pdf
Khoo, P. L. S., & Abu-Rasain, M. H. (1994). Counseling foreign students: A review of
strategies. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 7(2), 117-132.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of "Culture's
Consequences": A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's Cultural
Values Framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285-320.
Koss, M., Gidcyz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and
prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher
education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(2), 162-
170.

111
Koyama. (2005). Acculturation Stress and Alcohol Use Among International College
Students in a U.S. Community College Setting. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Falls Church.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in
emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 215-221.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help?
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Latané, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping.
Psychological Bulletin, 89(2), 308-324.
Latané, B., & Rodin, J. (1969). A lady in distress: Inhibiting effects of friends and
strangers on bystander intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
5(2), 189-202.
Lee, J., Pomeroy, E. C., Yoo, S.-K., & Rheinboldt, K. T. (2005). Attitudes toward rape: A
comparison between Asian and Caucasian college students. Violence Against
Women, 11(2), 177-196.
Lee, J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of
discrimination. Higher Education, 53(3), 381-409.
Lee, M. (1981). Needs of foreign students from developing nations at U.S. colleges and
universities. Washington, DC.: National Association for Foreign Student Affairs.
Leong, F. T. L., & Chou, E. L. (2002). Counseling international students and sojourners.
In P. B. Pedersen, W. J. Lonner, J. E. Trimble & J. Draguns (Eds.), Counseling
Across Cultures (5th ed., pp. 185-207). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling
Association.
Levine, M., Cassidy, C., Brazier, G., & Reicher, S. (2002). Self-categorization and
bystander non-intervention: Two experimental studies. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 32(7), 1452-1463.

112
Luo, T. (2000). "Marrying My Rapist?!": The Cultural Trauma among Chinese Rape
Survivors. Gender and Society, 14(4), 581-597.
MacDonald, H. (2008, February 24). What campus rape crisis? L.A. Times. Retrieved
November 16, 2008, from
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-
mac_donald24feb24,0,7810608,full.story
Macdonald, S., & Arthur, N. (2004). When international experience throws a career
curve. Calgary: The National Consultation on Career Development (NATCON).
Mertler, C. A., & Charles, C. M. (2005). Introduction to Educational Research (5th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Mori, S. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students. Journal
of Counseling and Development, 78(2), 137-144.
Negrusz, A., Juhascik, M., & Gaensslen, R. E. (2005). Estimate of the incidence of drug-
facilitated sexual assault in the U.S. University of Illinois at Chicago.
Office of International Services. (2008). International student enrollment report: Fall
2008. University of Southern California.
Patten, M. L. (2009). Understanding research methods: An overview of the essentials
(7th ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing
Peace Over Violence. (2008). A painful truth: A retrospective of a decade of sexual
violence (pp. 1-20): Los Angeles Commission on Assaults Against Women.
Pedersen, P. (1991). Counseling international students. The Counseling Psychologist, 19,
10-58.
Pines, A. M., Zaidman, N., Wang, Y., Chengbing, H., & Ping, L. (2003). The influence
of cultural background on students' feelings about and use of social support.
School Psychology International, 24(1), 33-53.

113
Poyrazli, S., & Grahame, K. M. (2007). Barriers to adjustment: needs of international
students within a semi-urban campus community. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 34(1), 28-46.
Poyrazli, S., Kavanaugh, P. R., Baker, A., & Al-Timimi, N. (2004). Social support and
demographic correlates of acculturative stress in international students. Journal of
College Counseling, 7(1), 73(10).
Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2005). Designing and conducting survey research: A
comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reilly, M. E., Lott, B., Caldwell, D., & DeLuca, L. (1992). Tolerance for sexual
harassment related to self-reported sexual victimization. Gender and Society 6(1),
122-138.
Sable, M. R., Danis, F., Mauzy, D. L., & Gallagher, S. K. (2006). Barriers to reporting
sexual assault for women and men: Perspectives of college students. Journal of
American College Health, 55(3), 157-162.
Salkind, N. J. (2008). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Sampson, R. (2003). Acquaintance rape of college students. Retrieved October 3, 2008.
from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/ric/ResourceDetail.aspx?RID=6.
Sandhu, D. S., & Asrabadi, B. R. (1994). Development of an acculturative stress scale for
internationa student: Preliminary findings. Psychological Reports, 75, 435-448.
Shalhoub-Kevorkian, N. (1999). Towards a cultural definition of rape: Dilemmas in
dealing with rape victims in Palestinian society. Women's Studies International
Forum, 22(2), 157-173.
Sivakumar, K., & Nakata, C. (2001). The stampede toward Hofstede's framework:
Avoiding the sample design pit in cross-cultural research. Journal of International
Business Studies, 32(3), 555-574.

114
Stein, J. L. (2007). Peer educators and close friends as predictors of male college
students' willingness to prevent rape. Journal of College Student Development,
48(1), 75-89.
Thomas, K., & Althen, G. (1989). Counseling foreign students. In P. B. Pedersen, J. G.
Draguns, W. J. Lonner & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling accross cultures (3rd
ed., pp. 205-241). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and
Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence
Against Women Survey. Report for grant 93-IJ-CX-0012, funded by the National
Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Wechsler, H., Nelson, T. F., Lee, J. E., Seibring, M., Lewis, C., & Keeling, R. P. (2003).
Perception and reality: a national evaluation of social norms marketing
interventions to reduce college students' heavy alcohol use. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, 64(4), 484-494.
Wilson, M. E., & Wolf Wendel, L. (2005). Introduction. In M. E. Wilson & L. Wolf
Wendel (Eds.), ASHE reader on college student development theory (pp. 569-
576). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Wilton, L., & Constantine, M. G. (2003). Length of residence, cultural adjustment
difficulties, and psychological distress symptoms in Asian and Latin American
international students. Journal of College Counseling, 3, 177-186.
Yamawaki, N. (2007). Differences between Japanese and American college students in
giving advice about help seeking to rape victims. Journal of Social Psychology,
147(5), 511-530.
Yamawaki, N., & Tschanz, B. T. (2005). Rape perceptions differences between Japanese
and American college students: On the mediating influence of gender role
traditionality. Behavioral Science, 52(5-6), 379-392.
Yeh, C. J., & Inose, M. (2003). International students' reported English fluency, social
support satisfaction, and social connectedness as predictors of acculturative stress.
Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 16(1), 15-28.

115
Yoon, E., & Jepsen, D. A. (2008). Expectations of and attitudes toward counseling: A
comparison of Asian international and U.S. graduate students International
Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 30(2), 116-127.

116
APPENDIX A:
SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT BYSTANDERS IN
SEXUAL ASSAULT SITUATIONS

Introduction and Welcome

This survey is for non-immigrant international students/alumni.

We are interested in learning why people who have knowledge of violence in colleges do
not report it, particularly in sexual assault situations. Your responses may help to
strengthen services, training, and resources for international students.

Your responses are anonymous, and your participation is voluntary. There is no way for
the researchers to link your identity to your responses. You may quit the survey at any
time or skip any question you do not wish to answer. By completing this survey, you
agree to be a participant. Thank you for participating!

1. I am
o a non-immigrant international student studying in the U.S.
o a graduate – formerly a non-immigrant international student studying in the U.S.

2. Factors Influencing Reporting (Student)

2.1 Imagine a situation where you saw or were told of a sexual assault. Regarding
helping the victim, to what extent do you agree with the following?

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

A. Being able to speak to a police officer or school official in my native language
would encourage me to help.

B. Being able to report the incident without being identified would encourage me to
help.

C. Being able to speak to a counselor on campus who is knowledgeable about my
country and customs would encourage me to help.

D. My cultural values regarding asking for help from formal authority (e.g., police,
school officials) would encourage me to help.

117
E. My cultural values regarding discussing sexual violence with others would
encourage me to help.

F. My cultural values regarding how problems should be handled would encourage me
to help.

G. My ability to communicate in English would encourage me to help.

2.2 Imagine a situation where you saw or were told of a sexual assault. Regarding
helping the victim, to what extent do you agree with the following?

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

H. The risk that I might not be able to concentrate on my school work would prevent
me from helping.

I. The risk that I might stir up trouble would prevent me from helping.

J. The risk that I might embarrass the victim would prevent me from helping.

K. The risk that I might get physically hurt by helping would prevent me from helping.

L. The risk that I might make the wrong decision to help when nothing was wrong and
might embarrass myself would prevent me from helping.

M. The risk that others might think I am too sensitive and that I am overreacting would
prevent me from helping.

N. The risk that I might make the wrong decision about how to help and get into
trouble would prevent me from helping.

O. The presence of alcohol during the sexual assault situation -- which would violate
the campus alcohol policy -- would prevent me from helping.

P. The presence of drugs during the sexual assault situation -- which would violate the
campus illegal drug use policy -- would prevent me from helping.

2.3 Imagine a situation where you saw or were told of a sexual assault. Regarding
helping the victim, to what extent do you agree with the following? I would help
the victim if:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Q. …the victim is a stranger.

118

R. …the victim is an acquaintance (someone you recognize but don't know well).

S. …the victim is a friend.

T. …the perpetrator (person committing the crime) is a stranger.

U. …the perpetrator is an acquaintance.

V. …the perpetrator is a friend.

Optional: Other factors that might influence whether you help the victim

3. Factors Influencing Reporting (Alumni)

3.1 Because you are a graduate, please base your responses on your experiences while
you were an international student. Imagine a situation where you saw or were told
of a sexual assault. Regarding helping the victim, to what extent do you agree with
the following?

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

A. Being able to speak to a police officer or school official in my native language
would encourage me to help.

B. Being able to report the incident without being identified would encourage me to
help.

C. Being able to speak to a counselor on campus who is knowledgeable about my
country and customs would encourage me to help.

D. My cultural values regarding asking for help from formal authority (e.g., police,
school officials) would encourage me to help.

E. My cultural values regarding discussing sexual violence with others would
encourage me to help.

F. My cultural values regarding how problems should be handled would encourage me
to help.

G. My ability to communicate in English would encourage me to help.

3.2 Imagine a situation where you saw or were told of a sexual assault. Regarding
helping the victim, to what extent do you agree with the following?

119

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

H. The risk that I might not be able to concentrate on my school work would prevent
me from helping.

I. The risk that I might stir up trouble would prevent me from helping.

J. The risk that I might embarrass the victim would prevent me from helping.

K. The risk that I might get physically hurt by helping would prevent me from helping.

L. The risk that I might make the wrong decision to help when nothing was wrong and
might embarrass myself would prevent me from helping.

M. The risk that others might think I am too sensitive and that I am overreacting would
prevent me from helping.

N. The risk that I might make the wrong decision about how to help and get into
trouble would prevent me from helping.

O. The presence of alcohol during the sexual assault situation -- which would violate
the campus alcohol policy -- would prevent me from helping.

P. The presence of drugs during the sexual assault situation -- which would violate the
campus illegal drug use policy -- would prevent me from helping.

3.3 Imagine a situation where you saw or were told of a sexual assault. Regarding
helping the victim, to what extent do you agree with the following? I would help
the victim if:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Q. …the victim is a stranger.

R. …the victim is an acquaintance (someone you recognize but don't know well).

S. …the victim is a friend.

T. …the perpetrator (person committing the crime) is a stranger.

U. …the perpetrator is an acquaintance.

V. …the perpetrator is a friend.

120

Optional: Other factors that might influence whether you help the victim

4. Responses to an Incident of Sexual Assault (Student)

We want to learn about how you may have handled a situation in which ANOTHER
PERSON had (or seemed to have had) an unwanted sexual experience. For each of
the following actions, please indicate whether you have chosen to take the action
while in the U.S.

• Not applicable - I had no reason or opportunity to take this action.
• YES - I chose to take this action.
• NO - I chose NOT to take this action.

A. My friend said she had an unwanted sexual experience, so I questioned her further
to see if it really happened.

B. I saw someone who seemed upset, so I asked if she was okay or needed help.

C. Someone told me she had been sexually assaulted, so I called a rape crisis center or
talked to a school counselor for help.

D. I suspected my friend had been sexually assaulted, so I told her that I was available
for help and support.

E. My friend told me she had an unwanted sexual experience, and I told her to keep
quiet so she wouldn't get others in trouble.

F. I shared information about an incident of sexual violence with authorities (i.e.,
police, school officials) in case it would be helpful.

G. After my friend said she had an unwanted sexual experience, I confronted the
perpetrator (person who committed the crime) or I was overcome with anger toward
the perpetrator that my friend (the victim) had to calm me down.

H. My friend said she had an unwanted sexual experience, and I gave her suggestions
about what she could have done to prevent the situation.

I. My friend said she had an unwanted sexual experience, and I let her decide what the
next steps, if any, would be.

J. My friend said she had an unwanted sexual experience, and I went with her to
report the incident to formal authorities (i.e., police, school officials).

121
Comments

5. Responses to an Incident of Sexual Assault (Alumni)

Please base your responses on your experiences while you were an international
student.

We want to learn about how you may have handled a situation in which ANOTHER
PERSON had (or seemed to have had) an unwanted sexual experience. For each of
the following actions, please indicate whether you have chosen to take the action
while in the U.S.

• Not applicable - I had no reason or opportunity to take this action.
• YES - I chose to take this action.
• NO - I chose NOT to take this action.

A. My friend said she had an unwanted sexual experience, so I questioned her further
to see if it really happened.

B. I saw someone who seemed upset, so I asked if she was okay or needed help.

C. Someone told me she had been sexually assaulted, so I called a rape crisis center or
talked to a school counselor for help.

D. I suspected my friend had been sexually assaulted, so I told her that I was available
for help and support.

E. My friend told me she had an unwanted sexual experience, and I told her to keep
quiet so she wouldn't get others in trouble.

F. I shared information about an incident of sexual violence with authorities (i.e.,
police, school officials) in case it would be helpful.

G. After my friend said she had an unwanted sexual experience, I confronted the
perpetrator (person who committed the crime) or I was overcome with anger toward
the perpetrator that my friend (the victim) had to calm me down.

H. My friend said she had an unwanted sexual experience, and I gave her suggestions
about what she could have done to prevent the situation.

I. My friend said she had an unwanted sexual experience, and I let her decide what the
next steps, if any, would be.

122
J. My friend said she had an unwanted sexual experience, and I went with her to
report the incident to formal authorities (i.e., police, school officials).

Comments

6. Demographics (Student)

We’d like to know a little more about you. Again, your responses are anonymous;
we cannot trace your identity.

A. Gender __Male __Female

B. Your age

C. Your country of citizenship

D. Number of years you have lived or studied in the United States
o Less than 1
o 1-2
o 3-4
o 5-6
o 7-8
o 9 or more

E. In the U.S., whom do you live with? (Mark all that apply)
o U.S. family
o U.S. student(s)
o International student(s) from another country
o International student(s) from my country
o My spouse (and children)
o Alone
o Other (please describe)

F. Have you been a victim of violence (harm) of any type? __Yes __No

G. Which of the following services/programs have you attended or used in the U.S.?
(Mark all that apply.)
o Education or training program about sexual assault
o On-campus counseling services
o Off-campus counseling services
o Campus-wide special event about sexual assault
o Other (please describe)

123
H. After your program of study, how likely is it that you might remain permanently in the
U.S.?
o Definitely not
o Unlikely
o Undecided - neither likely nor unlikely
o Likely
o Definitely will

I. What is your present level of English fluency?
o Poor
o Below Average
o Average
o Above Average
o Very Good

J. How comfortable are you communicating in English?
o Very Uncomfortable
o Uncomfortable
o Neither
o Comfortable
o Very comfortable

K. How often do you communicate in English?
o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o Always

7. Demographics (Alumni)

We’d like to know a little more about you. Again, your responses are anonymous; we
cannot trace your identity.

A. Gender __Male __Female

B. Your age (upon graduating as an international student)

C. Your country of citizenship (while you were an international student)

124
D. Number of years you lived or studied in the United States prior to graduating (as an
international student in the U.S.).
o Less than 1
o 1-2
o 3-4
o 5-6
o 7-8
o 9 or more

E. While an international student in the U.S., whom did you live with? Mark all that
apply.

o U.S. family
o U.S. student(s)
o International student(s) from another country
o International student(s) from my country
o My spouse (and children)
o Alone
o Other (please describe)

F. Have you been a victim of violence (harm) of any type? __Yes __No

G. Which of the following services/programs have you attended or used (as an
international student in the U.S.)? Mark all that apply.
o Education or training program about sexual assault
o On-campus counseling services
o Off-campus counseling services
o Campus-wide special event about sexual assault
o Other (please describe)

H. While you were an international student, how likely was it that you would remain
permanently in the U.S.?
o Definitely Would Not
o Unlikely
o Undecided - neither likely nor unlikely
o Likely
o Definitely Would

I. What was your level of English fluency (when you were an international student)?
o Poor
o Below Average
o Average
o Above Average
o Very Good

125

J. How comfortable were you communicating in English (when you were an international
student)?
o Very Uncomfortable
o Uncomfortable
o Neither
o Comfortable
o Very comfortable

K. How often did you communicate in English (when you were an international student)?
o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o Always

8. Elaboration (optional)
If you want to provide information about any of your survey responses, please do so here.

Thank you for completing our survey!

RESEARCHERS’ CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Dori
Lyn Hirata, Ed.D. Candidate, USC Rossier School of Education, c/o JAIMS, 6660
Hawaii Kai Drive, Honolulu, HI 96825, 808-396-7108, hiratafu@usc.edu, or Melora
Sundt, PhD, Associate Dean, Professor of Clinical Education, USC Rossier School of
Education, 503 WPH, Los Angeles, CA 90089, 213-740-2157, sundt@usc.edu.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – USC IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant
you may contact the IRB directly at the information provided below. If you have
questions about the research and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to
talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park IRB
(UPIRB), Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, University of Southern
California, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.

Thank you!

126
APPENDIX B
RECRUITMENT EMAIL MESSAGE FROM SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS
Subject: Invitation to Participate in Research Study

November 2009

University of Southern California Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Understanding the Reporting Behavior of International College Student Bystanders in
Sexual Assault Situations

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Dori Lyn Hirata Fujimori,
M.Ed. and Melora Sundt, Ph.D. at the University of Southern California, because (a) you
are currently a non-immigrant international student studying in the United States, OR (b)
you are a graduate, having been an international student studying in the United States.
Your participation is voluntary, and you should read the information below before
deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time as you need. You may also
decide to discuss participation with your family or friends. If you decide to participate,
you may proceed with the online survey using the link below. The survey will be open
until November 25, 2009:

Survey Monkey Link
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=_2fsMkKPeaR1Ki1smFT0UfTg_3d_3d

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to expand the information about international college student
bystanders in sexual assault situations on U.S. college campuses. We are interested in
learning why people who have knowledge of violence in colleges do not report it,
particularly in sexual assault situations. This study seeks to describe characteristics of
international college students who report in sexual assault situations as well as those who
opt not to report. This study also aims to identify the factors that international college
student bystanders consider when deciding whether to report a sexual assault.

Completion and return of the online survey will constitute your consent to participate in
this research project.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete an online
survey in a location of your choice. The survey will take approximately 10-15 minutes,
and you must complete the survey at one sitting. You may quit the survey at any time or
skip any question you do not wish to answer. Your responses are anonymous, and your

127
participation is voluntary. There is no way for the researchers to link your identity to
your responses. By completing this survey, you agree to be a participant. The survey
will consist of Likert-type questions about factors that have or may have influenced your
reporting in sexual assault situations, actual ways you have assisted a sexual assault
victim, and demographic information. About 300 participants will be recruited.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
The risk to you is minimal; however, you may experience some discomfort when
responding to questions that are personal and sensitive in nature. If you or someone you
know has experienced violence, answering the survey questions may be difficult. Should
you find any of the questions upsetting, you may quit the survey. If you would like to
speak to a counselor on campus, you may seek free, confidential counseling assistance
from the USC Center for Women and Men at Center (213) 740-4900 (24 hours). If you
would like to speak to a counselor off campus, call the Rape Treatment Center, (310)
319-4000 (24 hours), or Peace Over Violence, (213) 626-3393 (24 hours).

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Your participation in this study will likely not result in any direct individual benefit to
you. However, your responses may help to strengthen services, training, and resources
for international students. As this is a research study, the benefits are contingent upon the
results.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Participation is voluntary, and there is no payment/compensation for your participation.

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None

CONFIDENTIALITY
This survey is anonymous and confidential. Any identifiable information obtained in
connection with this study will remain confidential. When the results of the research are
published or discussed, no identifiable information will be used.

The data will be stored in the researcher’s computer in a locked home office. Only
members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this study.
Data will be kept until results are published in a dissertation (within a year after
collection). After this time, data will be destroyed.

The survey questions consist of Likert-type questions, and optional open-ended questions
for you to explain, if you wish. Responses from Likert-type questions will be
numerically coded for quantitative analysis. All responses from completed surveys will
be exported into SPSS 16.0 for statistical analysis. Further, data may be aggregated
before being published or discussed to conceal identifiable information.

128
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. The office/organization that sent you this invitation is
assisting the researchers as a courtesy. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty
or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent
at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal
claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
You may opt not to participate in the study.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Dori
Lyn Hirata, Ed.D. Candidate, USC Rossier School of Education, c/o JAIMS, 6660
Hawaii Kai Drive, Honolulu, HI 96825, 808-396-7108, hiratafu@usc.edu; or Melora
Sundt, PhD, Associate Dean, Professor of Clinical Education, USC Rossier School of
Education, 503 WPH, Los Angeles, CA 90089, 213-740-2157, sundt@usc.edu.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – USC IRB CONTACT
INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant
you may contact the IRB directly at the information provided below. If you have
questions about the research and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to
talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park IRB
(UPIRB), Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, University of Southern
California, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.

Survey Monkey Link
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=_2fsMkKPeaR1Ki1smFT0UfTg_3d_3d

129
APPENDIX C
TABLE 6 RESPONSES BY GENDER, COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, DEGREE OF
CULTURAL IDENTIFICATION, TIME IN THE UNITED STATES, ENGLISH
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, SOCIAL SUPPORT, EXPERIENCE AS A VICTIM OF
VIOLENCE, SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS, AND INTENTION TO
RETURN HOME
Frequency Percentage

Gender
Male 73 48.3%
Female 78 51.7%
Total 151 100%
Country of Origin (by Region)
Asia 130 88.4%
Central Asia 1 0.7%
East and Southeast Asia 116 78.9%
South Asia 13 8.8%
Europe 7 4.8%
Latin America and the Caribbean 1 0.7%
The Middle East 4 2.7%
Oceania 5 3.4%
Total 147 100%
Cultural Identification (composite score)
3 90 59.6%
4 32 21.6%
5 9 6.1%
6 17 11.5%
Total 148 100%
Time in U.S.
Less than 1 98 64.9%
1-2 32 21.2%
3-4 16 10.6%
5-6 3 2.0%
7-8 2 1.3%
9 or more 0 0%
Total 151 100%

130
Table 6 - Continued
Frequency Percentage

English Proficiency (composite score)
3 2 1.3%
4 10 6.7%
5 13 8.7%
6 11 7.4%
7 22 14.8%
8 34 22.8%
9 8 5.4%
10 49 32.9%
Total 149 100%
Social Support (Living Arrangements)
a

U.S. Family 85 56.3%
U.S. Student 16 10.6%
International Student – Other Country 28 18.5%
International Student -- Co-National 31 20.5%
Family 15 9.9%
Alone 24 15.9%
Experience as a Victim of Violence
Yes 8 5.3%
No 142 94.7%
Total 150 100%
Sexual Assault Awareness
a

Education or training program 24 15.9%
On-campus counseling services 16 10.6%
Off-campus counseling services 2 1.3%
Campus-wide special event about sexual assault 4 2.6%
Other 2 1.3%
No services or programs attended 111 73.5%
Intention to Return Home
Definitely will not 4 2.6%
Unlikely 24 15.9%
Undecided 51 33.8%
Likely 47 31.1%
Definitely will 25 16.6%
Total 151 100%
a
Survey item choices are not mutually exclusive. Percentages based on a total of 151
participants.

131
APPENDIX D
TABLE 7 DESCRIPTIONS OF VARIABLES USED TO ANALYZE THE SURVEY
OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT BYSTANDERS FOR THIS STUDY
Variable Description Study Role Coding
Gender Participant’s gender Independent Variable
in RQs 1 and 2
1=male; 2=female
Country of Origin
(Country)
Participant’s country of
citizenship
Independent Variable
in RQs 1 and 2
1=Africa
2=Central Asia
3=East & South East Asia
4=South Asia
5=Europe
6=Latin America and the
Caribbean
7=The Middle East
8=North America
9=Oceania
10=Other
Cultural
Identification
(CultureID)
Alpha = .74
Participant’s degree
(strength) of cultural
identification
Independent Variable
in RQs 1and 2
Continuous. Results are
summed responses from
items 2d-f/3d-f
1=Agree
1=Disagree
2=Strongly agree
2=Strongly disagree
Time in the United
States
Participant’s years living
or studying in the United
States
Independent Variable
in RQs 1and 2
1=Less than 1 year
2=1-2 years
3=3-4 years
4=5-6 years
5=7-8 years
6=9 or more
English Proficiency
Alpha=.85
Participant’s self-reported
English language
proficiency
Independent Variable
in RQs 1and 2
Continuous. Results are
summed responses from
items 6i-j/7i-j.
Factors Influencing
Reporting
Alpha=.81

Factors that influence
reporting in sexual assault
situations.
Independent Variable
in RQ 3
Responses from items 2a-
v/3a-v
1=Strongly agree
2=Agree
3=Disagree
4=Strongly disagree
Social Support –
U.S. Family
Participant’s living with a
U.S. family
Independent Variable
in RQ 1 and 2
0= did not live with
1= lived with
Social Support –
U.S. Student
Participant’s living with a
U.S. student
Independent Variable
in RQ 1 and 2
0= did not live with
1= lived with

132
Table 7 - Continued
Variable Description Study Role Coding
Social Support –
International
Student (Other
Country)
Participant’s living with
an international student of
a different country
Independent Variable
in RQ 1 and 2
0= did not live with
1= lived with
Social Support – Co-
National Student
Participant’s living with a
co-national student
Independent Variable
in RQ 1 and 2
0= did not live with
1= lived with
Social Support –
Family
Participant’s living with
own family
Independent Variable
in RQ 1 and 2
0= did not live with
1= lived with
Social Support --
Alone
Participant’s living alone Independent Variable
in RQ 1 and 2
0= did not live with
1= lived with
Sexual Assault
Awareness –
Programs
Attended
Participant’s attendance at
a program or event about
sexual assault awareness
Independent Variable
in RQ 1 and 2
0=not attended, 1=attended
Sexual Assault
Awareness –
Counseling
Used
Participant’s use of on- or
off-campus counseling
Independent Variable
in RQ 1 and 2
0=not used, 1=used
Experience as a
Victim
Whether the participant
has been a victim of
violence
Independent Variable
in RQ 1 and 2
1=yes; 2=no
Intention to Return
Home
Participant’s intention to
return home
Independent Variable
in RQ 1 and 2
Reverse code.
1=Definitely will not
2=Unlikely
3=Undecided - neither
likely nor unlikely
4=Likely (to stay in U.S.)
5=Definitely will
Reporting Behavior
Alpha=.75
Summed score of
participant’s helpful
reporting behavior in
sexual assault situations
Dependent variable
in RQ 1and 2
Summed responses from
items 4b, 4c, 4d, 4f, 4i,
4j/5b, 5c, 5d, 5f, 5i, 5j
0=No or not applicable
1=Yes
Reporter Status Participant classification
as a reporter based on
action on items 4b-d, f, i,
j/ 5b-d, f, i, j
Dependent Variable
in RQ 1 and 2
1=Reporter
2=Non-reporter

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined international college students at two institutions of higher education – a large research institution and a non-traditional management institution, with a majority of the sample being alumni from the latter. The purpose of the study was to provide data on the bystander characteristics and experiences of international college students in sexual assault situations.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Reporting differences among sexually assaulted college women: a cultural exploration

PDF

Teachers as bystanders: the effect of teachers’ perceptions on reporting bullying behavior

PDF

Bystander intervention training & the culture of sexual assault on college campuses

PDF

Bystander behavior in relation to violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered high school students

PDF

Physical aggression in higher education: student-athletes’ perceptions and reporting behaviors

PDF

Student willingness to report violence in secondary schools

PDF

The vortex of homophobic bullying: the reporting behavior of teachers

PDF

Who do we tell? School violence and reporting behavior among native Hawaiian high school students

PDF

Program content in a men-only sexual assault prevention program: the relationship between factual knowledge, familiarity with a victim, and self-reported behavior

PDF

The graduate school experience: exploring help-seeking behaviors of female South Asian international graduate alumni after experiencing sexual harassment or sexual assault

PDF

Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university

PDF

Innovative social support systems and the recruitment and retention of international students in U.S. higher education

PDF

Examining the relationship between students’ pre-college experiences and outcomes in diversity courses

PDF

A case study of promising practices in the prevention of sexual assault in postsecondary institutions

PDF

Understanding the effects of the Clery Act on college students' behaviors: how can student affairs professionals change the current practices of college students with regard to safety

PDF

Innovation in meeting the needs of students with disabilities

PDF

Supporting sexual assault survivors through on campus education/liaison programs: a descriptive case study

PDF

Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university

PDF

Factors inhibiting application for financial aid by low-income students at the University of Hawaii at Manoa

PDF

Sexual violence prevention on college campus as a Clery Act requirement: perceptions from the field

Asset Metadata

Creator Hirata Fujimori, Dori Lyn (author)

Core Title Understanding the reporting behavior of international college student bystanders in sexual assault situations

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/03/2010

Defense Date 03/07/2010

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag bystander reporting,international students,OAI-PMH Harvest,Sexual assault

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora A. (committee chair), Andres, Mary (committee member), Brewer, Dominic J. (committee member)

Creator Email dorilyn@jaims.org,hiratafu@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2981

Unique identifier UC1298237

Identifier etd-Fujimori-3569 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-312239 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2981 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Fujimori-3569.pdf

Dmrecord 312239

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hirata Fujimori, Dori Lyn

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu