Concurrent Administration of Sexual Assault Prevention and Risk Reduction Programming

Abstract

The present study describes the 4- and 7-month postintervention outcomes of a sexual assault risk reduction program for women, which was part of an evaluation that included a prevention program for men. Relative to the control group, participants evidenced more relational sexual assertiveness and self-protective behavior, and were more likely to indicate that they utilized active verbal and physical self-defense strategies. Whether or not women experienced subsequent victimization did not differ between groups. Relative to control group women who were victimized, program participants who were victimized between the 4- and 7-month follow-up blamed the perpetrator more and evidenced less self-blame.

Keywords

program evaluation sexual assault sexual assault risk reduction

Research has substantiated that sexual assault on college campuses is a serious public health problem. Studies indicate that between 12% (Kilpatrick, Resnick, Rugiero, Consoscenti, & McCauley, 2007) and 20% of undergraduate women report experiencing rape (Brener, McMahon, Warren, & Douglas, 1999). Furthermore, approximately 28% of undergraduate women report experiences of sexual victimization due to force or incapacitation either prior to or during college (Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2009). Over brief 2- to 3-month intervals, between 11% and 28% of college women report some form of sexual victimization (Gidycz, Orchowski, King, & Rich, 2008; Rich, Gidycz, Warkentin, Loh, & Weiland, 2005; Turchik, Probst, Chau, Nigoff, & Gidycz, 2007), and during one 9-month academic year approximately 35 of every 1,000 college women experience an attempted or completed rape (Karjane, Fisher, & Cullen, 2005).

Researchers and social advocates have developed a range of awareness campaigns and interventions aimed at reducing sexual assault on college campuses (for review) see Gidycz, Orchowski, & Edwards, 2011). In fact, U.S. federal law mandates that all colleges that receive federal funding implement some type of violence prevention programming (Schroeder, 2014)). Sexual assault prevention programs commonly focus on increasing participants’ awareness about violence; however, we have argued that whereas awareness-based programs raise public consciousness about sexual violence, these programs fail to provide participants with the skills to reduce risk for sexual assault (Gidycz et al., 2011). Programs that provide college students with skills to reduce their risk for sexual violence (i.e., skills-based programs) exist for mixed-sex audiences and single-sex groups of men and women. To underscore that it is not women’s responsibility to “prevent” violence, single-sex interventions designed to reduce women’s risk for sexual victimization are referred to as risk reduction programs, and single-sex interventions designed to decrease men’s perpetration of violence are referred to as sexual assault prevention programs (Lonsway et al., 2009). Preventive interventions for mixed-sex audiences account for approximately 64% of interventions (Morrison, Hardison, Mathew, & O’Neil, 2004). However, the content of mixed-sex programs may inadvertently result in sharing women’s protective strategies with potential perpetrators and may not be relevant to both men and women (Gidycz et al., 2011). Furthermore, concerns about judgments from others in a mixed-sex environment decrease the likelihood that men and women will share their attitudes openly (Berkowitz, 1994). In light of these concerns and the limited data supporting the effectiveness of mixed-sex programs (Anderson & Whiston, 2005), researchers have advocated for the development and evaluation of sexual assault programs for single-sex groups of men and women (Gidycz et al., 2011).

Sexual assault risk reduction programs for women operate under the belief that although only perpetrators can truly prevent sexual violence (Gidycz et al., 2011), women can nonetheless reduce their risk for violence by assessing dating and social situations for riskiness, acknowledging when situations are risky, and acting quickly and forcefully when risk is detected (Rozee & Koss, 2001). Over the course of multiple evaluation studies, the Ohio University Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program has undergone systematic development and revision according to program outcomes, theory, and empirical evidence regarding risk for sexual violence, and feedback from participants (e.g., Breitenbecher & Gidycz, 1998; Gidycz et al., 2001; Gidycz, Rich, Orchowski, King, & Miller, 2006; Hanson & Gidycz, 1993; Orchowski, Gidycz, & Raffle, 2008). The program is theoretically grounded in models of attitude and behavior change, including social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), the health belief model (Hochman, 1958), the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), and the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The most recent version of the program is 7-hour in length, and includes a feminist-based self-defense workshop (Gidycz, Rich, et al., 2006; Orchowski et al., 2008), a particularly important component of responding to potential perpetrators (Brecklin & Ullman, 2004). The program is guided by Rozee and Koss’s (2001) Assess, Acknowledge, and Act (AAA) model of sexual assault risk reduction, which encourages women to appraise, acknowledge, and assertively respond to coercive and potentially threatening dating situations. Evaluations of the program relative to wait-list and attention control groups document mixed but promising findings. Following participation, women report increased self-protective behavior (Gidycz, Rich, et al., 2006; Orchowski et al., 2008), assertive sexual communication (Orchowski et al., 2008), and self-efficacy in responding to potential attackers (Orchowski et al., 2008). In an early investigation with the initial program that was 1-hour long, it was found that the program was effective in decreasing sexual assault among women without a history of sexual victimization, but not effective among women with a history of sexual victimization (Hanson & Gidycz, 1993). In one investigation with a revised (and longer) version of the initial program, it was demonstrated that program women who were victimized over a 2-month follow-up period were less likely to be revictimized over the subsequent 4 months relative to the control group (Gidycz et al., 2001). Finally, it was found that the program was effective in decreasing rates of sexual victimization over a 2-month follow-up period (Orchowski et al., 2008).

Whereas sexual assault risk reduction programming for college women is an important component in addressing sexual violence on college campuses, it has been argued that providing sexual assault programming only to college women could potentially be inadvertently victim blaming (Gidycz et al., 2011). Directing sexual assault programming efforts only toward women promotes the attitude that women are responsible for “preventing” experiences of sexual assault (Schewe & O’Donohue, 1993). Given that a number of researchers of sexual assault prevention programming for men have noted the usefulness of providing programming efforts to intact groups of men who share similar social norms (Berkowitz, 2002), we believe it is likely also helpful for women to participate in programming with women whom they know and may trust. In light of these concerns, the present study extends the development and evaluation of the Ohio University Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program by examining the effectiveness of the intervention when implemented concurrently with a sexual assault prevention program for men within a residence hall setting. This two-pronged approach provides women with the risk reduction skills necessary to protect against sexual assault amid prevention efforts geared toward reducing men’s perpetration of sexual aggression.

This study was advertised as the Community Programming Initiative. First-year residence halls were randomly assigned to the treatment or control group, and participants completed outcome assessments at baseline, 4 and 7 months postintervention. Men and women living in program group residence halls were simultaneously offered tailored, single-sex sexual assault prevention or risk reduction programs, respectively. Outcomes of the sexual assault prevention program grounded in social norms and bystander intervention for men are described in a companion paper (Gidycz et al., 2011). Women in the treatment group received the 7-hour Ohio University Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program, which includes information on psychological barriers to resistance, as well as self-defense training. The present study presents outcomes for women. It was hypothesized that women in the program group, relative to the control group, would demonstrate (a) increased relational sexual assertiveness (RSA), (b) increased ability to respond to risky dating situations, (c) increased use of self-protective strategies, and (d) reduced rates of sexual victimization. It was also hypothesized that among women who experienced victimization over the course of the study, women in the program group, relative to the control group, would report (e) reduced severity and frequency of assault, (f) increased use of assertive responding to attackers, and (g) lower self-blame and increased perpetrator blame. We also hypothesized that program participants would be more likely to use self-defense strategies taught in the workshop over the 4- and 7-month follow-up compared with control group participants. Exploratory analyses were also conducted to examine whether victimization over the follow-up period was associated with program outcomes.

Method

Participants

Participants in the Community Programming Initiative included men and women living in campus residence halls for first-year students (n = 1,285). It is estimated that 57.3% (n = 1,285) of the 2,243 students living in the eligible residence halls chose to enroll. The study was conducted at a medium-sized Midwestern University, where students are required to live on campus during their first year. A total of 650 women volunteered to participate. No women were omitted from analyses due to missing or incomplete data. The majority of women were 18 or 19 years old (98.5%, n = 640), unmarried (99.1%, n = 644), and reported that they were heterosexual (98.5%, n = 640). Consistent with the university demographics, 91.8% of women identified as Caucasian (n = 597), 4% as African American (n = 26), 1.1% as Asian (n = 7), 0.8% as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (n = 5), 0.5% as American Indian or Alaska Native (n = 3), and 1.8% as “Other” (n = 12). Two-percent (n = 13) self-identified as Hispanic or Latino. Regarding annual family income, 25.6% did not know their annual family income (n = 167), 24.9% reported an annual family income of US$100,000 or more (n = 162), 31.6% reported an annual family income that ranged from US$50,000 to US$100,000 (n = 205), and 18.6% reported an annual family income of less than US$50,000 (n = 121).

The Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program

The 7-hour risk reduction program consisted of an initial didactic and interactive course, a feminist self-defense workshop, and a booster session review of program material. The components of the risk reduction program (Gidycz, Lynn, et al., 2006) are described in detail by Orchowski and her colleagues (2008), and the initial didactic and interactive course includes components that address definitions and statistics, risk factors, postassault reactions, and resistance strategies. Videotapes are utilized to highlight risks as well as resistance strategies and to stimulate group discussion. PowerPoint presentations are utilized to provide didactic information. The goals of the risk reduction program are to (a) reduce incidence of sexual assault among program participants, (b) increase women’s assertiveness in sexual situations, (c) increase women’s confidence in responding to potential attackers, (d) increase women’s use of self-protective strategies, (e) decrease self-blame among women who experience sexual victimization, and (f) increase women’s use of self-defense tactics.

Measures

Demographic characteristics

A demographic questionnaire assessed participant age, ethnicity and race, sexual orientation, and annual family income.

Sexual victimization

The Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss & Oros, 1982) utilizes a series of 10 behaviorally oriented and sexually explicit questions to assess a variety of past sexual victimization experiences. At baseline, the SES was utilized to assess for history of sexual victimization, from the age of 14 to the baseline assessment. The questionnaire was also administered at each follow-up to examine women’s experiences of sexual victimization over the interim. Individuals were placed into categories of sexual victimization history according to the most severe experience reported, including (a) no history of sexual victimization, (b) moderate sexual victimization (i.e., attempted rape, sexual coercion, and forced sexual contact), and (c) severe sexual victimization (i.e., rape; threats of force or physical force were used to coerce the woman into engaging in oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse). The scale demonstrates good test–retest reliability (r = .93; Koss & Gidycz, 1985) and adequately captures the legal definitions of attempted rape and rape (Gylys & McNamara, 1996). In this sample, experiences of adolescent sexual victimization (i.e., from the age of 14 to the baseline assessment) were reported by 34.6% (n = 225) of the women. More specifically, 25.8% (n = 168) of the women reported a history of moderate sexual victimization and 8.8% (n = 57) of the women reported a rape.

Assault characteristics

Based on the Assault Characteristics Questionnaire developed by Layman, Gidycz, and Lynn (1996), several questions were added to the SES to assess characteristics of the most severe assault reported. Women were asked to report how many times they experienced such an assault over the follow-up (i.e., once, twice, or three or more than three times), and the resistance tactics utilized (i.e., did you resist, did you say “no,” did you try to run away). Women also reported their level of self-blame and perpetrator blame for the assault along a 5-point scale, ranging from “not at all responsible” to “very much.”

Assertive sexual communication

Assertiveness in sexual situations was assessed with the Sexual Assertiveness Questionnaire for Women (SAQ-W; Walker, 2006). Participants respond to 30 items along a 5-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The measure includes the following four subscales: (a) RSA, (b) Sexual Agency, (c) Sexual Standards, and (d) Sex-Related Negative Affect. For the purpose of the current study, the RSA subscale was utilized. The RSA subscale demonstrates good internal consistency, and lower RSA is associated with increased risk for verbally coerced sexual intercourse (Cronbach’s α = .93; Walker, 2006). Cronbach’s alpha for the subscale was .92.

Self-efficacy in responding to risky dating situations

Women’s confidence in performing an array of assertive responses in threatening dating situations was assessed with the Self-Efficacy Scale (Marx, Calhoun, Wilson, & Meyerson, 2001; Ozer & Bandura, 1990). Responses to 7 items are provided along a 7-point scale, ranging from “not at all confident” to “very confident.” This scale has been utilized to examine changes in participants’ confidence in responding to unwanted sexual advances in prior evaluations of sexual assault risk reduction programming (Gidycz, Rich, et al., 2006; Orchowski et al., 2008), and the internal consistency reliability of this scale is high (Cronbach’s α = .97; Ozer & Bandura, 1990). Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .85.

Self-protective dating behavior

Use of behaviors to decrease risk for sexual victimization was assessed by the Dating Self-Protection Against Rape Scale (Moore & Waterman, 1999). Participants respond to 15 items on a 6-point scale, ranging from “never” to “always.” This survey is associated with other measures of self-protective dating behaviors (Breitenbecher, 2008) and demonstrates good internal consistency and split-half reliability (Cronbach’s α = . 86; Spearman–Brown = . 81; Moore & Waterman, 1999). Cronbach’s alpha for the current sample was .79.

Resistance tactics

Regardless of experiences of sexual victimization over the interim, at the 4-month and 7-month follow-up, program and control group participants completed items regarding their likelihood to utilize a range of self-defense tactics in response to an unwanted sexual advance by responding either not at all likely to completely likely on a 7-point scale to a series of six question prompts. The resistance tactics included (a) assertive body language (e.g., walking confidently), (b) assertive verbal responses (e.g., saying “no”), (c) avoiding “telegraphing” emotions (e.g., providing an assertive verbal response even when nervous), (d) attention to intuition (e.g., trusting your gut), (e) yelling and running, and (f) physical self-defense. These tactics were discussed and modeled for program participants during the self-defense workshop and booster session.

Procedure

All study procedures were approved by the local Institutional Review Board (IRB). The procedure of the Community Programming Initiative is described in the article, which summarizes the results of the men’s sexual assault prevention arm of the study (Gidycz et al., 2011). All of the women living in residence halls randomly assigned to the program group were offered the opportunity to complete the sexual assault risk reduction program. The time frame was such that the 2½-hour feminist self-defense program was offered approximately 2 weeks after the initial 3-hour long risk reduction program. The 2-hour booster session was conducted immediately after the participants completed the 4-month follow-up assessments. Intervention components were manualized and administered in the residence hall. Prevention and risk reduction programs for men and women living in program group residence halls were administered concomitantly. Women in control group residence halls only completed questionnaires and were offered the opportunity to complete the risk reduction program following the completion of the study.

The study was conducted over the course of 2 academic years. Over the course of the study, eight female undergraduates were trained to lead the groups. Training consisted of 20 to 25-hour of didactic training and supervised administration of the program protocol as well as participation in weekly supervision. Two women facilitated each program with one serving as the primary facilitator, and the second assisting with engaging participants in discussion, responding to questions, and managing PowerPoint presentations, handouts, and videos. A graduate student researcher was on-site to supervise, and the primary investigator was also available. Groups consisted of approximately 22 women, on average (SD = 10.73). Review of 25% of the intervention groups by a trained female research assistant indicated that, on average, 98% of the intervention components were administered.

Outcome measures were administered at baseline, 4-month and 7-month follow-up sessions. Women in the control group received US$20 for completing questionnaires at the baseline, 4-month and 7-month follow-up sessions. Women in the program group received US$20 at the baseline assessment, US$20 at the self-defense course, US$30 at the 4-month follow-up, and US$20 at the 7-month follow-up. Of the 650 women who participated in the baseline assessment, 85.4% returned for the 4-month follow-up (n = 555) and 82.3% returned for the 7-month follow-up (n = 535). Chi-square analysis suggested that return rates at the 4- or 7-month follow-up did not vary among program and control group participants.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Test of randomization

Descriptive characteristics (i.e., age, race, ethnicity, family income, and history of sexual victimization) and baseline reports on program outcome measures did not differ between groups at baseline.

Differential dropout between groups

Analyses were conducted to examine whether the program participants who did not return for the 4-month or 7-month follow-up sessions differed at baseline from control participants who did not return for the 4-month or 7-month follow-ups. History of sexual victimization varied between program and control participants who did not attend the 7-month follow-up, χ²(1, N = 115) = 4.28, p < .05. Specifically, 51.9% of women who did not return for the 7-month follow-up in the program group reported a history of sexual victimization (n = 28) at baseline compared with 32.8% of women in the control group (n = 20). Demographic characteristics and levels on continuous outcome variables reported at baseline did not vary between program and control group women who dropped out of the study at the 4- or 7-month follow-up. Levels on continuous outcome variables reported at the 4-month follow-up and sexual victimization reported at the 4-month follow-up also did not vary between program and control group women who dropped out of the study at the 7-month follow-up.

Differences between completers and noncompleters within each group

Within each group, analyses next explored whether women who remained in the study differed from women who dropped out of the study at each follow-up. Within the program group, history of sexual victimization reported at baseline varied between women who attended and dropped out of the study at the 7-month follow-up, χ²(1, N = 276) = 11.83, p < .001. Specifically, 28.4% of program women who attended the 7-month follow-up reported a history of sexual victimization (n = 63) when compared with 51.9% of the program women who dropped out of the study at the 7-month follow-up (n = 28). Demographic characteristics and levels on continuous outcome variables reported at baseline did not vary between completers and noncompleters of the 4- and 7-month follow-up within each group. Levels on continuous outcome variables reported at the 4-month follow-up and sexual victimization reported at the 4-month follow-up did not vary between completers and noncompleters of the 7-month follow-up within each group.

Program Effects on Assertiveness, Resistance Self-Efficacy (RSE), and Self-Protective Behavior

Continuous outcome variables were examined with a series of 2 × 3 × 3 (Group × Victimization during the 4-month follow-up × Time) repeated-measures ANOVAs. Sexual victimization over the 4-month interim was included as an independent variable in the analyses to examine whether the program had a differential effect for women who were victimized following program participation. Post hoc analyses of two-way interactions were conducted via a simple main effects analysis according to Fisher’s Least Significant Difference Test. Three-way interactions were examined via simple interaction analyses, whereby pairwise comparisons first examined how the outcome measure varied over time for women who experienced none, moderate, or severe sexual victimization over the 4-month interim. Second, comparisons explored at each time period how outcomes varied between program and control participants who experienced corresponding forms of sexual victimization over the 4-month follow-up. Third, comparisons examined how, among women in each group, outcomes varied at each time period between women who experienced none, moderate, or severe sexual victimization over the 4-month follow-up. Descriptive statistics for program outcomes are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Self-Protective Dating Behavior, RSA, and RSE.

	Pretest		4-month		7-month
Group	M	SE	M	SE	M	SE
Self-protective behavior^a
Exp (n = 207)	48.57	1.79	52.70	1.89	52.31	1.96
Con (n = 296)	50.29	1.30	49.60	1.37	49.64	1.43
RSA^b
Exp (n = 207)	54.87	1.70	57.15	1.68	59.17	1.67
Con (n = 297)	53.56	1.30	52.13	1.28	52.72	1.27
RSE^c
Exp (n = 207)	38.45	1.22	39.58	1.20	38.70	1.16
Con (n = 297)	37.04	0.88	35.85	0.87	38.63	0.84

Note. RSA = relational sexual assertiveness; RSE = resistance self-efficacy; Exp = experimental group; Con = control group.

Scores on the Dating Self-Protection Against Rape Scale range between 15 and 90.

Scores on the RSA subscale range between 14 and 70.

Scores on the RSE Scale range between 7 and 49.

Aim 1: Increase women’s relational sexual assertiveness

The measure of RSA revealed a significant time by group interaction, F(2, 958) = 4.23, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01. Program participants evidenced increases in RSA from baseline (M = 54.87, SE = 1.70) to 7 months (M = 59.17, SE = 1.67). At 4 and 7 months, RSA was higher in the program group (M = 57.15, SE = 1.68; M = 59.17, SE = 1.67) compared with the control (M = 52.13, SE = 1.28; M = 52.72, SE = 1.27).

A three-way interaction between time, group, and sexual victimization over the 4-month follow-up was also revealed, F(4, 958) = 2.75, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01. At 7 months postintervention, nonvictimized and severely victimized women, respectively, in the program group reported higher RSA (M = 63.35, SE = 0.71; M = 58.75, SE = 4.58) compared with nonvictimized and severely victimized women, respectively, in the control group (M = 61.17, SE = 0.59; M = 44.57, SE = 3.46). In the program group, at each time period (i.e., baseline, 4 and 7 months postintervention), RSA was higher among women who were not victimized over the 4-month follow-up (M = 60.74, SE = 0.72; M = 62.31, SE = 0.71; M = 63.35, SE = 0.71) compared with women who were moderately victimized (M = 48.38, SE = 1.91; M = 53.88, SE = 1.89; M = 55.42, SE = 1.87). In the control group, at each time period (i.e., baseline, 4 and 7 months postintervention), RSA was higher among women who were not victimized over the 4-month follow-up (M = 60.78, SE = 0.60; M = 61.51, SE = 0.59; M = 61.17, SE = 0.59) compared with women who were moderately victimized (M = 52.19, SE = 1.54; M = 49.73, SE = 1.52; M = 52.41, SE = 1.51) or severely victimized (M = 47.71, SE = 3.54; M = 45.14, SE = 3.49; M = 44.57, SE = 3.46). In the program group, both nonvictimized women and women who experienced moderate victimization over the 4-month follow-up reported higher RSA at 4 months (M = 62.31, SE = 0.71; M = 53.88, SE = 1.89) and 7 months (M = 63.35, SE = 0.71; M = 55.42, SE = 1.87) compared with baseline (M = 60.74, SE = 0.72; M = 48.38, SE = 1.91). In the control group, women who experienced moderate sexual victimization over the 4-month follow-up reported lower RSA at 4 months (M = 49.73, SE = 1.52) compared with 7 months (M = 52.41, SE = 1.51).

Aim 2: Increase women’s confidence in responding to risk

Measures of RSE indicated a significant time by group interaction, F(2, 996) = 3.81, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01. Whereas RSE remained stable among program participants over time, levels of RSE among control group participants were lower at 4 months (M = 35.85, SE = 0.87) compared with 7 months (M = 38.63, SE = 0.84). At the 4-month follow-up, levels of RSE were higher among program participants (M = 39.58, SE = 1.20) compared with control participants (M = 35.85, SE = 0.87).

An interaction between time, group, and victimization over the 4-month follow-up was also revealed, F(4, 996) = 3.17, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01. Broadly, program participants who were not victimized reported higher RSE at 7 months (M = 41.14, SE = 0.48) compared with baseline (M = 40.08, SE = 0.50). RSE at 7 months was higher among nonvictimized women in the program group (M = 41.14, SE = 0.48) compared with nonvictimized women in the control group (M = 39.50, SE = 0.40). In the program group, reports of RSE at the 4-month and 7-month follow-up, respectively, were higher among women who were not victimized (M = 40.56, SE = 0.50; M = 41.14, SE = 0.48) compared with women who reported moderate victimization (M = 36.92, SE = 1.33; M = 37.96, SE = 1.27). At 4 months, RSE was higher among women who experienced severe victimization in the program group (M = 41.25, SE = 3.31) compared with women who experienced severe victimization in the control group (M = 31.25, SE = 2.34). In the control group, baseline levels of RSE were lower among severely victimized women (M = 33.25, SE = 2.37) compared with women who were not victimized (M = 39.67, SE = 0.42), and at 4 months, RSE was lower among women who experienced moderate (M = 36.12, SE = 1.09) and severe victimization (M = 31.25, SE = 2.34) compared with women who were not victimized (M = 40.14, SE = 0.42). Women severely victimized in the control group reported higher RSE at 7 months (M = 38.38, SE = 2.26) compared with baseline (M = 33.25, SE = 2.37) or 4 months (M = 31.25, SE = 2.34). Finally, women moderately victimized in the control group reported lower RSE at 4 months (M = 36.16, SE = 1.09) compared with baseline (M = 38.19, SE = 1.10).

Aim 3: Increase women’s use of self-protective strategies

The measure of self-protective dating behavior evidenced a significant time by group interaction, F(2, 994) = 3.34, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01. Specifically, levels of self-protective behavior among program participants increased from baseline (M = 48.57, SE = 1.79) to the 4-month follow-up (M = 52.70, SE = 1.89) and were maintained over the 7-month follow-up (M = 52.31, SE = 1.96). No changes in self-protective behavior were evidenced among control group participants over time.

Program Effects on the Nature and Outcome of Sexual Victimization

Aim 4: Reducing rates of sexual victimization

Rates of sexual victimization over time were examined through a backward hierarchical loglinear regression. As described by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001), in this analysis, all possible associations are entered into the model. No distinctions are made between independent and dependent variables. Associations that do not degrade the model once removed are deleted until the model includes all significant interactions between variables. Chi-square tests are then utilized to examine significant interactions. Factors in the model included history of sexual victimization reported at baseline, victimization over the 4-month follow-up, victimization over the 7-month follow-up, and group membership. Sexual victimization in each time period was classified as none, moderate, or severe. The best fitting model included 2 two-way interactions and one main effect, which included history of sexual victimization and sexual victimization over the 4-month follow-up period, G²(4, N = 504) = 45.03, p < .001; sexual victimization over the 4-month follow-up and sexual victimization during the 7-month follow-up, G²(4, N = 504) = 37.12, p < .001; and a main effect for group, G²(1, N = 504) = 16.16, p < .001. Because no two-way interactions were evidenced between group membership and sexual victimization over the 4-month follow-up or between group membership and sexual victimization over the 7-month follow-up, the program was not effective in reducing rates of sexual victimization. Furthermore, because no three-way interactions were revealed between history of sexual victimization reported at baseline, group membership, and victimization over either of the follow-up periods, the program was not differentially effective in reducing subsequent sexual victimization among women with a history of assault.

Chi-square analyses explored the relationship between history of sexual victimization and sexual victimization over the 4-month follow-up, χ²(4, N = 504) = 44.81, p < .001. Approximately 30% of women with a history of sexual victimization experienced sexual assault over the 4-month follow-up (n = 49) compared with 7.4% (n = 25) of women without such a history. A second chi-square analysis explored the relationship between victimization over the 4-month and 7-month follow-up, χ²(4, N = 504) = 44.39, p < .001. Whereas 29.7% of women who experienced sexual victimization over the 4-month follow-up experienced an assault over the 7-month follow-up (n = 22), 5.6% of women who were not victimized during the 4-month follow-up were assaulted over the 7-month follow-up (n = 24).

Rates of sexual victimization among women in each group were as follows: Among program participants at the 4-month follow-up, 12.1% (n = 25) reported moderate sexual victimization and 1.9% reported severe sexual victimization (n = 4); among control group participants at the 4-month follow-up, 12.5% reported moderate sexual victimization (n = 37) and 2.7% reported severe sexual victimization (n = 8). Among program participants at the 7-month follow-up, 9.2% (n = 19) reported moderate sexual victimization and 1.4% (n = 3) reported severe sexual victimization. In the control group at the 7-month follow-up, 6.7% (n = 20) reported moderate sexual victimization over the interim and 1.3% (n = 4) reported severe sexual victimization.

Aim 5: Reducing the frequency of assault

Among women who experienced sexual victimization over each follow-up period, two 2 × 2 chi-square analyses suggested that severity of sexual victimization (i.e., moderate vs. severe) did not differ as a function of group membership. Among women who experienced sexual victimization over each follow-up, two chi-square analyses examined the relationship between the frequency of the most severe assault that occurred over the interim (i.e., once, twice, thrice or more) and program participation. At the 7-month follow-up, the frequency of the most severe form of sexual victimization varied between program and control group participants who were victimized over the interim, χ²(2, N = 46) = 9.24, p < .05. Specifically, 72.7% (n = 16) of program participants were victimized once, no participants reported two experiences, and 27.3% reported that the experience occurred three or more times (n = 6). Furthermore, 54.2% of control participants reported that the experienced occurred once (n = 13), 33.3% reported that the experience occurred twice (n = 8), and 12.5% reported that the experience occurred three or more times (n = 3).

Aim 6: Increase women’s use of resistance tactics at the time of the assault

Resistance tactics used among women victimized over the 4- and 7-month follow-up are presented in Table 2. Chi-square analyses suggested that over the 4-month follow-up, more program participants who were victimized reported some form of resistance in response to the attacker compared with control group participants who were victimized, χ²(1, N = 72) = 4.99, p < .05. Among women victimized during the 7-month follow-up, compared with control group participants, program participants were more likely to resist against the attacker, report running away, and say “no” to the perpetrator, χ²(1, N = 46) = 6.32, p < .05; χ²(1, N = 42) = 4.42, p < .05; χ²(1, N = 42) = 4.71, p < .05.

Table 2.

Use of Resistance Strategies Among Women Who Reported Sexual Victimization Over the 4-Month Follow-Up.

	4-month follow-up				7-month follow-up
	Experimental		Control		Experimental		Control
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Did you resist?^a,b
No	3	10.7	15	34.1	2	9.1	10	41.7
Yes	25	89.3	29	65.9	20	90.9	14	58.3
Did you try to run away?^b
No	23	82.1	37	90.2	17	81.0	21	100
Yes	5	17.9	4	9.8	4	19.0	0	0
Did you say “No”?^b
No	12	44.4	21	48.8	8	38.1	15	71.4
Yes	15	55.6	22	51.2	13	61.9	6	28.6

At the 4-month follow-up, p < .05.

At the 7-month follow-up, p < .05.

Aim 7: Decrease self-blame and increase perpetrator blame among survivors

Among women victimized over the 7-month follow-up, program participants reported attributing less blame to themselves for the assault (M = 2.00, SD = 0.77) compared with control group participants (M = 2.63, SD = 1.01), t(43) = −2.30, p < .05, Cohen’s d = .70. Furthermore, program participants victimized over the 7-month follow-up attributed more blame to the perpetrator (M = 3.27, SD = 0.98) compared with control group participants who were victimized (M = 2.63, SD = 1.10), t(44) = 2.10, p < .05, Cohen’s d = .64. Among women victimized over the 4-month follow-up, levels of self- and perpetrator blame did not vary between groups.

Program Effects on Women’s Use of Self-Defense Tactics

A series of t tests were conducted to examine whether program participants were more likely to use each self-defense tactic taught in the risk reduction workshop over the 4- and 7-month follow-up compared with control group participants. Relative to the control group, at the 4-month follow-up, program participants were more likely to pay attention to their intuition, use yelling and running as a means to escape an attacker, and avoid telegraphing their emotions when uncomfortable in a dating situation, t(502) = 2.78, p < .01, Cohen’s d = .25; t(502) = 2.47, p < .05, Cohen’s d = .22; t(501) = 2.92, p < .01, Cohen’s d = .26. Relative to the control group, at the 7-month follow-up, program participants reported that they were more likely to pay attention to their body language, pay attention to their intuition, use yelling and running to escape an attacker, engage in physical self-defense, avoid telegraphing emotions when in an uncomfortable dating situation, and use an assertive verbal response when in a risky dating situation, t(501) = 3.00, p < .01, Cohen’s d = .27; t(501) = 3.08, p < .01, Cohen’s d = .28; t(501) = 2.62, p < .01, Cohen’s d = .17; t(500) = 2.70, p < .01, Cohen’s d = .24; t(501) = 2.66, p < .01, Cohen’s d = .24; t(501) = 2.79, p < .01, Cohen’s d = .25 (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Use of Self-Defense Tactics Among Program and Control Group Women.

	4-month		7-month
Group	M	SD	M	SD
Assertive body language
Program (n = 207)	5.53	1.32	5.70^a**	1.17
Control (n = 297)	5.30	1.32	5.36	1.30
Assertive verbal response
Program (n = 207)	5.93	1.20	6.11^a**	1.04
Control (n = 297)	5.79	1.26	5.80	1.31
Avoid “telegraphing” emotions
Program (n = 206)	3.73**	1.89	3.91**	1.89
Control (n = 297)	3.27	1.67	3.48	1.75
Pay attention to your intuition
Program (n = 207)	5.72**	1.27	5.94^a**	1.14
Control (n = 297)	5.39	1.37	5.60	1.23
Yelling and running
Program (n = 207)	3.85*	1.81	4.15^a**	1.82
Control (n = 297)	3.44	1.81	3.73	1.70
Physical self-defense
Program (n = 207)	4.41	1.70	4.70^a**	1.72
Control (n = 297)	4.20	1.81	4.27	1.79

n = 206.

p < .05. **p < . 01.

Discussion

The researchers examined the efficacy of the sexual assault risk reduction arm of an intervention that offered intensive programs separately to men and women living in the same first-year college dormitories. This study represents the first evaluation of a “dual-pronged” programming effort that encouraged dialogue between students and challenged the community-based norms that perpetuate violence against women.

Several positive findings were evident among women who participated in the risk reduction program. Relative to the control group, program participants evidenced increases in self-protective behaviors over the 4-month follow-up and maintained these gains over the academic year. Furthermore, program participants also evidenced increases in RSA over the 7-month follow-up. At both follow-up periods, program group women compared with the control group were more likely to pay attention to their intuition, consider using yelling and running to escape from an attacker, and aim to avoid telegraphing their emotions to the potential perpetrator when in an uncomfortable dating situation. At the 7-month follow-up, program women were also more likely to report that they paid attention to their body language, considered using self-defense tactics, and engaged in a verbally assertive response when in a risky dating situation. Such data indicate that participation in the program works toward the goal of increasing women’s ability to recognize when a dating situation is risky and respond quickly and assertively, which are key components of decreasing risk for assault (Nurius, 2000; Rozee & Koss, 2001). It is likely that active practice and modeling provided in the self-defense workshop play an important role in helping women to develop an increased awareness of risk and then encourage them to trust their intuition or to listen to that inner voice that tells them that something is not right when in risky situations.

Over the 4-month follow-up, levels of confidence in resisting against attackers declined among women in the control group; whereas levels of RSE remained constant over time among program participants. It is possible that women’s vigilance in dating situations naturally declines over the course of college as women become more comfortable in the campus community. Participation in a risk reduction program may help women maintain an active awareness of the possibility of encountering potential perpetrators within their campus community over the course of their college years. Research has yet to examine naturalistic change in women’s use of self-protective dating behaviors during college.

Although some, but not all, past investigations with this program have indicated a positive effect on rates of sexual victimization (Hanson & Gidycz, 1993; Orchowski et al., 2008) or revictimization among women who experienced assault after program participation (Gidycz et al., 2001), in the present study, there were no differences between groups in self-reported overall reports of whether or not women had experienced any sexual victimization. The intervention was also not associated with reduction in rates of revictimization among women between each time period. However, when women reported on their most severe victimization over the 7-month follow-up, program participants indicated experiencing that form of victimization fewer times than women in the control group. These results, however, are tempered by the finding that program group women, while being victimized fewer times overall, were more likely than control group women to be victimized three or more times. Whereas it was disappointing that the results were not stronger, the findings of a decreased number of assaults over time is important in light of data suggesting that women are victimized on multiple occasions and repeated victimizations are associated with an increased risk for mental health problems (Classen, Palesh, & Aggarwal, 2005). It was also positive that program participants who experienced victimization over the course of the study were more likely to use some resistance against the attacker, say “no” in response to the advance, and utilize running away as a self-defense tactic. It is possible that, in the context of this study, women in the program group evidenced fewer instances of their most severe form of sexual aggression at the 7-month follow-up because of their use of such strategies. Women who use more assertive resistance strategies are more likely to avoid a sexual assault than those who use more passive strategies (Rozee & Koss, 2001). There is also some evidence that self-defense training leads to additional positive outcomes, including increased assertiveness, improved self-esteem, decreased anxiety, decreased avoidance behaviors, and increased participatory behaviors (Brecklin, 2008).

Women in the program group who were victimized over the 7-month follow-up compared with control group women who were victimized evidenced less self-blame and greater offender blame, a finding similar to a prior evaluation of this program (Gidycz, Rich, et al., 2006). As some instances of sexual assault are unavoidable, sexual assault risk reduction programs must also acknowledge that some women are likely to be victimized following program participation and take steps to see that program participation positively affects recovery. Although this research did not include assessment of psychological distress among participants, at the very least, such findings address concerns about possible victim blaming that may occur if women are victimized after participating in a risk reduction program. Providing women with stories of survivors of sexual assault during the program protocol may be one reason why women who experienced victimization following participation reported lower levels of self-blame. The program also specifically addresses issues related to self-blame.

In light of prior investigations suggesting that women who are victimized over the course of an academic year have varying long-term outcomes compared with women who are not victimized (Gidycz, Coble, Latham, & Layman, 1993; Gidycz et al., 2001; Orchowski et al., 2008), analyses were conducted to examine the impact of the program among women who experienced sexual victimization over the 4-month follow-up. The frequency of women who experienced sexual victimization over the interim was quite small, and as such, data should be interpreted cautiously. Data indicated a three-way interaction between participation, victimization over the 4-month follow-up, and RSA over time. Generally, program participants who were moderately victimized reported increases in RSA from baseline to the 4-month follow-up, whereas this construct did not change among women in the control group reporting similar victimization experiences. It is possible that higher levels of RSA among women who experienced moderate sexual victimization over the interim are because these women successfully utilized verbal assertiveness to de-escalate a risky dating situation. Qualitative interviews with program participants who utilize the skills taught in the program to successfully fight back are an important area for future inquiry, as these situations are not effectively captured on current instruments that assess incidence of sexual victimization.

Similar to prior investigations (Orchowski et al., 2008), a three-way interaction between participation, victimization over the 4-month follow-up, and RSE was also revealed. At the 4-month follow-up, program women who experienced severe sexual victimization reported higher levels of RSE than women in the control group who had similar victimization experiences. At the 7-month follow-up, program women who were not victimized reported higher RSE than women in the control group who were not victimized. One possible explanation for why women who experience severe sexual victimization following program participation report higher levels of RSE after a victimization experience is that they feel confident that they may be able to put program skills into use in the future. Mixed-methods approaches (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003) and the use of exit interviews following program participation may elucidate the mechanisms by which RSE changes over time.

There were various limitations to the study that should be kept in mind when interpreting the findings. First, it was hoped that the majority of residents in the treatment and control residence halls would participate in the study; however, approximately 60% of residents did. It is therefore unclear if the residents who participated in the programming were representative of all of the students living in the community. Given that programs were administered jointly to men and to women, the key components of each intervention are also not clear. It is positive, however, that the men’s program demonstrated numerous promising outcomes, including reductions in reports of sexual perpetration for program group men relative to controls (Gidycz et al., 2011). Whereas it is likely that synergistic effects were associated with joint administration of programming efforts, alternative research designs are needed to test this hypothesis. Second, it should be noted that at the 7-month follow-up, women with a history of adolescent sexual victimization were more likely to drop out of the study prior to the follow-up in the program group compared with the control group. It is unclear why some women with a history of sexual victimization did not continue participation in the long-term follow-up. As has been suggested elsewhere, it is possible that some women with a history of adolescent sexual assault may have different needs in the context of sexual assault risk reduction programs, and that tailored programming efforts are warranted to meet the needs of such women. However, it is important to keep in mind that overall the return rate was very good and the majority of women (both victims and nonvictims) returned for the follow-up assessments.

Third, whereas there were many positive outcomes associated with the risk reduction program, the lack of uniformity of such outcomes within this study, and in comparison with prior program evaluations, suggests that future efforts may be needed to augment the program and understand the components that maximize effectiveness. For example, prior evaluations of the program have been facilitated by female graduate students in a clinical psychology doctoral program. Future research is needed to better understand the potential differences in program outcomes when sexual assault risk reduction programming is administered by peers, in comparison with when programming is administrated by women with a more extensive background in sexual assault research and/or clinical intervention. Furthermore, studies have yet to examine the additive effect of administering the sexual assault risk reduction program with or without the self-defense workshop.

In sum, targeting men’s role in preventing sexual assault while providing women with sexual assault risk reduction strategies also communicates to students that it is not women’s responsibility to prevent the perpetration of violence against women. In addition to the positive findings in this study with women, findings from the men’s program suggested that there were positive effects on men’s perceptions that their peers would intervene when they encountered inappropriate behavior by others as well as reports of fewer associations with sexually aggressive peers, less exposure to sexually aggressive media, and finding sexually aggressive behavior less personally reinforcing. Furthermore, results suggested that program group men were less likely than the control group men to engage in sexually aggressive behavior over the 4-month follow-up (Gidycz et al., 2011). Including men in prevention efforts is a vital step in reducing violence against women, given that it is the responsibility of potential perpetrators to ultimately end acts of violence against women. However, while we are waiting for men to cease the perpetration of sexual assault, including risk reduction programming within the context of wider systemic interventions to address sexual violence is one avenue to provide women with the knowledge and skills to fight back against potential attackers and reduce their risk of victimization.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by Grant 1 R49 CE0009239 (PI: Gidycz).

Author Biographies

Christine A. Gidycz, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at Ohio University has conducted investigations pertaining to sexual assault correlates and risk factors and factors that contribute to the sexual revictimization of women. Dr. Gidycz developed the Ohio University Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program which is designed to decrease women’s risk for sexual victimization and a focus of her research is the evaluation of programs designed to prevent sexual violence.

Lindsay M. Orchowski, PhD, completed her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology at Ohio University, with graduate certificate in Women’s Studies. She is an Assistant Professor (Research) at the Alpert Medical School of Brown University and a Staff Psychologist at Rhode Island Hospital.

Danielle R. Probst, PhD, is a clinical psychologist in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and team lead of the Chronic Pain Rehabilitation Program at the Chalmers P. Wylie VA Ambulatory Care Center. She earned her doctoral degree at Ohio University and completed a postdoctoral fellowship in psycho-oncology & palliative medicine at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. Her current research focus is on outcomes of psychosocial interventions for self-management of chronic pain as well as the impact of abuse experiences on coping with chronic pain.

Katie M. Edwards, PhD, is an assistant professor of psychology and women’s studies at the University of New Hampshire, Durham. Specific research interests include predictors and correlates of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization, perpetration, and bystander intervention among adolescents and young adults; leaving processes in relationships characterized by IPV, disclosure of IPV experiences and social reactions to these disclosures, and ethics of IPV research. She is committed to using findings from her research to develop, implement, and evaluate prevention, intervention, and policy efforts.

Megan Murphy, PhD, has worked on a number of research projects pertaining to sexual assault and prevention programming on college campuses. Much of her research has focused on methodological enhancements to and validation of existing measures used in sexual assault research. She received a Ph.D. In Clinical Psychology at Ohio University and is currently completing a clinical psychology postdoctoral traineeship at Woodland Centers, Inc. in Gallipolis, Ohio.

Erin Tansill, PhD, graduated from Ohio University in 2014 after completing her predoctoral internship at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System - American Lake Division. Her areas of interest include interpersonal violence, physical health concerns following traumatic events, addiction, and interpersonal conflict.

References

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Anderson

L. A.

Whiston

S. C.

(2005). Sexual assault education programs: A meta-analytic examination of their effectiveness. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 374-388. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00237.x

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Berkowitz

A. D.

(1994). A model acquaintance rape prevention program for men. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Men and rape: Theory, research, and prevention programs in higher education (pp. 35-42). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Berkowitz

A. D.

(2002). Fostering men’s responsibility for preventing sexual assault. In Schewe

P. A.

(Ed.), Preventing violence in relationships: Interventions across the life span (pp. 163-196). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Brecklin

L. R.

(2008). Evaluation outcomes of self-defense training for women. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 60-76. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2007.10.001

Brecklin

L. R.

Ullman

S. E.

(2004). Correlates of postassault self-defense/assertiveness training participation for sexual assault survivors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 147-158. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00131.x

Breitenbecher

K. H.

(2008). The convergent validities of two measures of dating behaviors related to risk for sexual victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1095-1107. doi:10.1177/088626050731397

Breitenbecher

K. H.

Gidycz

C. A.

(1998). An empirical evaluation of a program designed to reduce the risk of multiple sexual victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 472-488. doi:10.1177/088626098013004004

10.

Brener

N. D.

McMahon

P. M.

Warren

C. W.

Douglas

K. A.

(1999). Forced sexual intercourse and associated health-risk behaviors among female college students in the United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 252-259. doi:10.1037//0022-006X.67.2.252

11.

Classen

C. C.

Palesh

O. G.

Aggarwal

(2005). Sexual revictimization: A review of the empirical literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6, 103-129. doi:10.1177/1524838005275087

12.

Gidycz

C. A.

Coble

C. N.

Latham

Layman

M. J.

(1993). Sexual assault experience in adulthood and prior victimization experiences: A prospective analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 151-168. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1993.tb00441.x

13.

Gidycz

C. A.

Lynn

S. J.

Rich

C. L.

Loh

Marioni

N. L.

Orchowski

L. M.

(2006). The Ohio University Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program (Unpublished manuscript).

14.

Gidycz

C. A.

Lynn

S. J.

Rich

C. L.

Marioni

N. L.

Loh

Blackwell

L. M.

. (2001). The evaluation of a sexual assault risk reduction program: A multisite investigation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 1073-1078. doi:10.1037//0022-006X.69.6.1073

15.

Gidycz

C. A.

Orchowski

L. M.

Edwards

(2011). Primary prevention of sexual violence. In Koss

White

Kazdin

(Eds.), Violence against women and children (Vol. 2, pp. 159-179). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

16.

Gidycz

C. A.

Orchowski

L. M.

King

C. R.

Rich

C. L.

(2008). Sexual victimization and health-risk behaviors: A prospective analysis of college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 744-763. doi:10.1177/0886260507313944

17.

Gidycz

C. A.

Rich

C. L.

Orchowski

King

Miller

A. K.

(2006). The evaluation of a sexual assault self-defense and risk-reduction program for college women: A prospective study. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 173-186. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00280.x

18.

Gylys

J. A.

McNamara

J. R.

(1996). Acceptance of rape myths among prosecuting attorneys. Psychological Reports, 79, 15-18.

19.

Hanson

K. A.

Gidycz

C. A.

(1993). An evaluation of a sexual assault prevention program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 1046-1052. doi:10.1037//0022-006X.61.6.1046

20.

Hochman

G. M.

(1958). Public participation in medical screening programs: A socio-psychological study (PHS Publication No. 572). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6264119M/

21.

Karjane

H. M.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

(2005). Sexual assault on campus: What colleges and universities are doing about it. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

22.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Resnick

H. S.

Rugiero

K. J.

Consoscenti

L. M.

McCauley

(2007). Drug-facilitated, incapacitated, and forcible rape: A national study. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf

23.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

C. A.

(1985). Sexual Experiences Survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422-423. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.53.3.422

24.

Koss

M. P.

Oros

C. J.

(1982). Sexual Experiences Survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455-457. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.50.3.455

25.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

C. H.

Warner

T. D.

Fisher

B. S.

Martin

S. L.

(2009). College women’s experiences with physically forced, alcohol- or other drug-enable and drug facilitated sexual assault before and since entering college. Journal of American College Health, 57, 639-647. doi:10.3200/JACH.57.6.639-649

26.

Layman

M. J.

Gidycz

C. A.

Lynn

S. J.

(1996). Unacknowledged versus acknowledged rape victims: Situational factors and posttraumatic stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 124-131. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.105.1.124

27.

Lonsway

Banyard

Berkowitz

A. D.

Gidycz

C. A.

Jackson

Koss

M. P.

. (2009). Rape prevention and risk reduction: Review of the research literature for practitioners. Harrisburg, PA: VAWnet, a project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence/Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Available from http://www.vawnet.org

28.

Marx

B. P.

Calhoun

K. S.

Wilson

Meyerson

L. A.

(2001). Sexual revictimization prevention: An outcome evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 25-32. doi:10.1037//0022-006X.69.1.25

29.

Moore

C. D.

Waterman

C. K.

(1999). Predicting self-protection against sexual assault in dating relationships among heterosexual men and women, gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 132-140.

30.

Morrison

Hardison

Mathew

O’Neil

(2004). An evidence-based review of sexual assault preventive intervention programs. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

31.

Nurius

P. S.

(2000). Risk perception for acquaintance sexual aggression: A social-cognitive perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 63-78. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00003-2

32.

Orchowski

L. M.

Gidycz

C. A.

Raffle

(2008). Evaluation of a sexual assault risk reduction and self-defense program: A prospective analysis of a revised protocol. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 204-218. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00425.x

33.

Ozer

E. M.

Bandura

(1990). Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 472-486. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.58.3.472

34.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

35.

Rich

C. L.

Gidycz

C. A.

Warkentin

J. B.

Loh

Weiland

(2005). Child and adolescent abuse and subsequent victimization: A prospective study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1373-1394. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.07.003

36.

Rozee

P. D.

Koss

M. P.

(2001). Rape: A century of resistance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 295-311. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.00030

37.

Schewe

P. A.

O’Donohue

(1993). Rape prevention: Methodological problems and new directions. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 667-682. doi:10.1016/0272-7358(93)90032-H

38.

Schroeder

L. P.

(2014). Cracks in the ivory tower: How the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act can protect students from sexual assault. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 45. Retrieved from http://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1484&context=luclj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fas_ylo%3D2011%26q%3DCampus%2BSave%2BAct%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C36#search=%22Campus%20Save%20Act%22

39.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

40.

Tashakkori

Teddlie

(2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

41.

Turchik

J. A.

Probst

D. R.

Chau

Nigoff

Gidycz

C. A.

(2007). Factors predicting the use of resistance tactics: A prospective study of college women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 605-614. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.75.4.605

42.

Walker

D. P.

(2006). Impaired sexual assertiveness and consensual sexual activity as risk factors for sexual coercion in heterosexual college women (Unpublished master’s thesis). Miami University of Ohio, Oxford.