Beyond the Dyad

Abstract

Sexual assault is prevalent in the United States, particularly among college women. Prevention programs are implemented to combat assault, yet rates have not changed for five decades. A course designed to deconstruct contextualized factors contributing to assault was developed as an alternative prevention initiative. The current study assessed the effectiveness of the course compared with a traditional program via in-depth interviews with students. Findings indicated that students in the course were more likely to acknowledge underlying determinants of sexual assault and articulate how such behaviors could lead to assault. The course could be an effective approach to sexual assault prevention education.

Keywords

college students rape sexual assault sexual assault prevention education

Introduction

Sexual assault (i.e., non-consensual sexual activity obtained through force, threats, verbal coercion, or intoxication) continues to be a pervasive problem in the United States, particularly among college women. Approximately 15% to 25% of women in the United States have experienced a sexual assault or rape during their lifetime (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006) with college women at an increased risk for sexual assault compared with the general population (Daigle, Fisher, & Cullen, 2008; Fisher et al., 2000). The wide range of sexual assault rates cited are due, in large part, to different methodologies utilized during data collection (e.g., asking questions using the term “rape”/”sexual assault” vs. “forced/unwanted sex”) and/or varying definitions of rape/sexual assault used during data collection, rather than to imprecision in data collection. Unfortunately, rates of sexual assault have not declined over the last 50 years (Adams-Curtis & Forbes, 2004; Marine, 2004; Sampson, 2002), despite decades of prevention initiatives (Carmody, 2005).

Sexual assault prevention education initiatives are ubiquitous across institutions of higher education in the United States to combat rates of sexual assault. Colleges and universities implement sexual assault prevention programming in part because national mandates require them to do so to receive federal funds (National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 1994). However, there is a lack of comprehensive data assessing the content, implementation, and effectiveness of such programs (Cass, 2007). As such, it is difficult to monitor or regulate universities’ implementation of programming. Sexual assault prevention education programming is defined as “any intervention that was hypothesized by the investigator to affect sexual assault-related attitudes, cognitions, emotions or behaviors” (Breitenbecher, 2000, p. 24). Traditional sexual assault prevention programs often consist of special workshops or seminars that specifically target issues related to sexual assault prevention. Such issues often include providing information about sexual assault prevalence among college students, debunking rape myths, addressing conventional gendered assigned sex roles, identifying risk-reduction behaviors, and training in how to be empathtic toward rape survivors (Breitenbecher, 2000; Schewe, 2006). Typical programs often run between 45 min to 2 hr in length (Schewe, 2006). However, researchers have stated that there is a need to increase the duration of interventions because current time frames are insufficient for challenging rape-supportive ideology (Barth, Derezotes, & Danforth, 1991; Lonsway, 1996; Schaeffer & Nelson, 1993). Other types of initiatives, often deemed non-traditional, include taking a credited university course such as human sexuality (Dallager & Rosen, 1993), a course on women and violence (Currier & Carlson, 2009), a training course taken by students as preparation to become a peer facilitator for a sexual assault prevention education program (Lonsway et al., 1998), or exposure to pornography with subsequent debriefing (Breitenbecher, 2000). Like traditional programs, these initiatives are also aimed at altering sexual assault-related attitudes, cognitions, emotions, and/or behaviors.

Campus administrators and college health professionals often acknowledge the need for prevention programming; however, researchers and college health professionals continue to question whether such programming is effective. The answer to this question is dependent on how effectiveness is conceptualized. Most evaluations determine effectiveness by examining a range of variables including attitudes, behavioral intentions, self-report behaviors, sexual victimization, directly observed behaviors, and sexual aggression (Breitenbecher, 2000). Program success has often been assessed via positive shifts in participants’ level of rape myth acceptance (Burt, 1980), attitudes toward rape (Field, 1978), and adversarial sexual beliefs (Burt, 1980). Sexual assault prevention education initiatives are generally somewhat effective in modifying some attitudes and behavioral intentions. Yet, much of the peer-reviewed literature suggests that programs are effective in altering one or a few select-dependent variables, but not the others. In addition, the positive attitudinal/behavioral intention shifts that do occur tend not to last over time (Breitenbecher, 2000).

Lonsway and colleagues (1998) stated that it is difficult for educators to shift the attitudes of students in the long term via a brief (45 min to 2 hr) intervention. They maintain that a longer duration of time spent with students is essential for effective sexual assault prevention education. In fact, students who took a semester-long course aimed at training peer facilitators to lead campus acquaintance rape prevention education programs demonstrated less endorsement of rape myth acceptance and adversarial heterosexual beliefs compared with students enrolled in a human sexuality course as a control. Students also scored more positively on the Attitudes Toward Feminism Scale (indicating more favorable views of feminism) compared with those in the control group. These changes occurred at the immediate post-test. At the 2-year follow-up, students who were enrolled in the peer facilitator course demonstrated less endorsement of rape myths compared with those enrolled in the human sexuality course, but scores on the other two scales were not significantly different between the two groups (Lonsway et al., 1998). Such findings demonstrate that a longer duration of time in which students spend conceptually thinking about the determinants of sexual violence may be helpful in changing attitudes that contribute to sexual violence. However, an important limitation to note is that students who enrolled in the peer facilitator course did so with the intention of volunteering as a peer sexual assault education facilitator. As such, these students may be more prone to endorse such beliefs because they had voluntarily opted to work with a sexual assault prevention education group compared with the average student.

The Current Study

In response to Lonsway and colleagues’ (1998) recommendations, a course specifically created to examine the social and behavioral determinants of sexual assault exclusively in the college environment was designed for students to take as an elective course; that is, students were not required to enroll in this course as a training for a sexual assault prevention education group and the course title did not include the words “sexual assault,” “rape,” or sexual violence.” The semester-long course was designed to deconstruct the larger contextual factors that contribute to the occurrence and institutional acceptance of sexual violence in the college culture. More specifically, the course covered material (via readings and discussion of peer-reviewed literature, viewing and discussing documentary films, discussing students’ personal observations and experiences in the college culture) and required students to complete assignments (e.g., reflection papers, group presentations, critical assessments of the media) in which they reflected on such material and how it could be linked with and contribute to sexual violence in the college environment. For the most part, the course was entirely discussion-based and explored the interrelationship of gender, sexuality, and the college culture, including societal and media messages, gender roles, and gender-assigned sexual behavior. There was also an emphasis on how these factors contribute to sexual violence among college students.

The course was designed as an alternative to the traditional sexual assault prevention education workshop available at the university, which was often conducted during a single class session as part of other courses. Both the course and the workshop focused on real-life applications of consent and sexual assault. That is, both emphasized the definition of consent. Both the course and the workshop utilized the following definition of consent: “an unmistakable, often verbal, positive agreement to engage in sexual activity that is freely given and uncoerced.” Both also emphasized that if a person says no to sexual activity and that activity occurs anyway, it is considered rape or sexual assault. Furthermore, both the course and the workshop focused on applying the definitions of consent and sexual assault during a skit-based presentation. However, the course extended beyond consent in the context of a sexual dyad (i.e., getting/giving consent to sex just prior to the sexual activity potentially occurring) to also highlight contextualized factors that contribute to misunderstandings in consent and social coercion resulting in sexual assault. The focus on the contextualized environment was designed to help students better understand how sexual assault occurs in the college environment. More specifically, the course highlighted factors within the college environment (e.g., gender roles in sexual behavior, media influence on beliefs about sexuality, hooking up/sexual relationships and encounters in the college culture, gender differences in applications of sexuality education, institutional acceptance of gender inequity in the college environment), demonstrating how such factors contribute to misunderstandings in consent communication, support for social coercion, the occurrence of sexual assault, and engagement in victim blaming. The present study was thus designed to provide a preliminary examination of the influence such a course might have on students enrolled, compared with students who had been exposed to the campus’ current efforts at sexual assault prevention education which, at the time of the study, included a 60-min presentation. In addition to emphasizing the definition and application of consent, the workshop covered definitions and statistics related to sexual assault among college students and how to respond to a sexual assault victim. This information was also covered in the course.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the alternative approach (i.e., the contextualized course on sexual violence in the college environment) compared with the 60-min sexual assault prevention education workshop. Specifically, the current study aimed to compare students in the course with students who had taken the workshop on the following criteria:

Students’ ability to:

Recognize the occurrence of sexual assault in a fictitious scenario;

Recognize proximal factors that contribute to sexual assault in a fictitious scenario; and

Recognize distal determinants of sexual assault in a fictitious scenario.

Students’ engagement in victim blaming and rape myth endorsement regarding the characters in a fictitious scenario.

Method

Overview

The current study constitutes a preliminary assessment of an alternative approach to implementing sexual assault prevention education via comparing a semester-long course to an hour-long workshop. One-on-one qualitative interviews were conducted with students who were enrolled in either the semester-long course or were exposed to the hour-long workshop. Carspecken’s (1996) Critical Qualitative Methodology derived from Habermas’ (1984) Communicative Action Theory, in combination with Hesse-Biber and Leavy’s (2007) feminist qualitative interview and analysis methodology, were utilized to direct the interview protocol (a dialogic protocol) as well as data analysis (inductive content analysis). Carspecken’s (1996) methodological approach is grounded in feminist ideology: participant autonomy is maintained (the investigator viewed the research process as a participatory effort, rather than the researcher conducting a study on a subject), and an egalitarian relationship between the participant and researcher was sought. Furthermore, feminist principles are helpful when addressing sensitive topics such as sexual communication and consent because autonomy and an egalitarian researcher–participant relationship aim to put the participant at ease, thus decreasing the likelihood of response bias and increasing the validity of the participants’ responses.

Participants and Study Procedure

Students who were enrolled in the semester-long course were invited to participate in the study 4 months after the course was completed. The duration between class completion and study recruitment was instituted for two reasons. First, the duration would help ensure that students would not feel as though their grade in the course was dependent on their participation in the study and thus feel pressured to participate. Second, this period of time was utilized because previous research demonstrated attitudinal rebounding after a few weeks to a month (Heppner, Humphrey, Hillenbrand-Gunn, & DeBord, 1995). Therefore, a lapse of several months may account for potential rebounding of attitudes among students in the course.

At the conclusion of the hour-long workshop, enrolled students were asked to provide an email address if they were interested in participating in the study. Students who submitted email addresses were then contacted via email within 2 weeks about study participation. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Indiana University.

Data were collected from 20 students: n = 10 enrolled in the semester course and n = 10 who had been exposed to the sexual assault prevention workshop. Participation was voluntary; however, students received a $20 gift card as a participation incentive.

Lonsway and colleagues (1998) indicated that it is through understanding the social and contextualized determinants of sexual violence that students begin to shift their attitudes toward rape, women, and relationships (indicating less endorsement of rape myths, gender inequity, and adversarial views of women in heterosexual relationships). As such, this study aimed to assess students’ ability to deconstruct the determinants of sexual violence by presenting them with a fictitious scenario and asking them to identify key determinants that lead to sexual violence in the college environment. Students listened to an audio recording (and were provided a text script to follow along) of five fictitious scenes making up a continuous scenario that follows two college students, Vicki and Pete, during a party at which the two engage in a social interaction in which a sexual assault occurs. The scenario also included discussions with two of Vicki’s female friends and two of Pete’s male friends. Audio recordings of the five scenes were utilized as opposed to just having the participants read the text so that the tone of each character was consistent across participants and was not left up to the participants’ interpretation. During the audio recording of the scenes, the narrator described the actions of the characters and the research participant was privy to Vicki and Pete’s internal thought processes. Each of the six characters’ dialogue and internal thoughts were read by a different person on the audio recording so that research participants would be able to distinguish between the characters in the scenes. To summarize:

Scene 1: Vicki and Pete meet. Vicki approaches Pete to talk with him. Pete interprets her approach as interest in sex; he suggests they leave to go to a private room. Vicki interprets Pete’s general friendliness as interest in getting to know her better.

Scene 2: Once in the room, Pete kisses Vicki and the couple begins to make out and engage in intimate touching. Although Vicki enjoys it, she does not want the sexual activity to progress too far because she does not want Pete to think she is “too easy.” Pete interprets her non-verbal cues as a communication to try something different. He unzips his pants and places her hand inside his pants. Vicki is uncomfortable with this, but rationalizes that if she stimulates Pete to orgasm with her hand, she will not feel pressured to have sexual intercourse with him. Vicki is concerned that Pete will think she is “a tease” or that she does not like him if she stops or refuses to have sexual intercourse with him.

Scene 3: Pete interprets Vicki’s actions as preparation to have sexual intercourse so he pulls her pants down. Vicki realizes the sexual activity has extended beyond her comfort zone and pulls away to resist; Pete interprets this reaction as her continued preparation for intercourse. Vicki tells Pete “no” and to “stop” multiple times. Pete interprets her refusals as Vicki not wanting to appear “slutty.” He continues progressing in sexual activity and forces sex on Vicki.

Scene 4: Vicki recounts the situation with Pete to her friends, Paula and Jen. Paula is supportive and encourages Vicki to report the incident. Paula says that if Vicki said no, then what happened to her is rape. Jen blames Vicki by saying that reporting could ruin Pete’s life as well as the girls’ social life. She states that Vicki thought Pete was cute and approached him at the party, so she is to blame. Paula and Jen decide to consult with Pete’s friends, Rick and Jason, to get their opinions; Rick is Jen’s boyfriend.

Scene 5: Jen and Paula recount the story to Rick and Jason. Rick and Jason say that Pete is a nice guy and that Vicki is a slut, was drunk, and obviously wanted the sex, but now regrets it. They maintain that Vicki is now claiming rape to avoid appearing like a slut. They tell Jen and Paula that if Vicki is going to claim rape and be “sloppy,” none of the girls are welcome to party at the guys’ house any longer. Paula and Jen return to Vicki and encourage her to ignore the situation. Paula shifts to blaming Vicki with Jen as to not upset the guys.

All of the scenes were specifically written to include examples of determinants of sexual assault. The scenes were written by the author and a research team made up of sexual assault educators and a sex therapist who has worked extensively with sexual assault victims and perpetrators. The intended, identified examples included in each scene are listed in Table 2 and correspond to the scene in which they appeared. The author and the research team chose the specific concepts to embed in the scenes because they collaboratively determined that these concepts are highly linked to the occurrence of sexual assault among college students and constitute relevant and specific determinants of sexual assault in the college environment. These conclusions were based on the author’s and the team’s knowledge of the field, the peer-reviewed literature, and their anecdotal experiences working in sexual assault prevention. For instance, research suggests that endorsement of victim blaming, rape myth acceptance, and traditional views of women have been linked to greater endorsement of sexual violence and violence against women (Burt, 1980; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994; Lott, Reilly, & Howard, 1982; Lottes, 1992). As such, many of the embedded concepts (i.e., rape myths, victim blaming, acknowledgment of sexual assault/rape, traditional sexual script, scripted gender roles, gender-assigned sexual behavior) are linked to these larger constructs. After each scene was completed, participants were asked to reflect on the scene and were specifically asked two questions that sparked a dialogic discussion between researcher and interviewee: (a) Can you tell me what is going on in the scene? and (b) What do you think each of the characters is thinking? Participants also provided an overall reflection at the conclusion of the five scenes. Participants’ responses were assessed to determine the extent to which they were able to identify the embedded examples either by name (e.g., victim blaming) or via description (e.g., Jen is blaming Vicki for causing her own assault because she flirted with Pete). In addition, participants’ responses were assessed to examine the underlying belief structure of the participants (e.g., whether or not participants engaged in victim blaming).

Analyses

All interview data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using critical qualitative analytical techniques such as meaning field analysis (i.e., assessing all potential meanings of statements) and reconstructive validity horizon analysis (i.e., clarifying the impressions of meaning from participants’ statements for the researcher to determine what she may be missing, what biases might be in play, and what cultural forms are necessary to understand through future analysis; Carspecken, 1996). These analytic techniques helped inform the coding procedures. Specifically, a multi-layered coding scheme was developed to analyze data in two distinct ways. First, coding was conducted to determine whether participants referenced the embedded concepts in the scenario, and second, to assess overarching themes in participants’ overall narrative.

In terms of coding procedures, data were coded in two different ways by a coding team made up of the author and two research assistants who had both been trained as peer sexual assault prevention educators. First, each interview was coded strictly based on whether or not participants acknowledged or referenced the embedded concepts. For example, during the dialogue with the interviewer after a scene concluded, if a participant referenced an embedded concept like token resistance (i.e., saying no initially, but meaning yes and intending to consent to sex; Muehlenhard & Hollabaugh, 1988; Muehlenhard & Rodgers, 1998), whether or not they used that terminology, the coding team coded the participant as acknowledging the concept. The coding team noted whether or not the participant used the term or described the concept of the term. However, for the purposes of the current study, saying the term or describing the concept both resulted in the participant being coded as having acknowledged the embedded concept. This procedure was conducted for each participant’s interview to examine all the embedded terms in each of the five scenes.

Cohen’s kappa, a conservative measure (Perreault & Leigh, 1989), was calculated to assess an average score of interrater reliability. An average Cohen’s kappa coefficient of 0.94 was obtained across all scenes for each participant, and all interrater reliability scores for each scene for each participant were over 0.8, indicating acceptable agreement (Banerjee, Capozzoli, McSweeney, & Sinha, 1999). To address coding discrepancies (i.e., whether or not a participant addressed an embedded concept during the interview), the author independently re-coded participants’ scenes in which the coders disagreed. The final codes were chosen based on a majority agreement. Fisher’s exact test was also utilized to compare the frequency of participants’ acknowledgment of the embedded concepts among participants enrolled in the course with those who had taken the workshop.

The interviews were then re-analyzed to assess emerging themes. First, the author reviewed a subset of the data to generate a family of codes based on emerging themes within the data. Analytic techniques, such as meaning field and reconstructive validity horizon analyses (Carspecken, 1996), were utilized to inform the code generation. The list generated by the author was then discussed with the research team described above. A final coding scheme was agreed upon by the author, the research team, and the coding team. The developed codes addressed the presumed meaning underlying the participants’ statements (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2007). In other words, codes were identified as a series of common themes through which students’ responses could be reasonably interpreted. The analysis procedures provided insights into participants’ subjective experiences, which in turn help conceptualize the world view of these college students as it relates to sexual assault.

Results

Participant Characteristics

Table 1 provides a summary of the main demographic characteristics for participants who were enrolled in the course as well as those who had been exposed to the workshop. The majority of participants in both groups were female, heterosexual, and between 18 and 23 years old. All of the participants in the course group identified as White, whereas there was some racial diversity in the workshop group. Participants’ class standing and relationship status ranged for both groups.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics.

Characteristic	Course % (n)	Workshop % (n)
Gender
Female	90.0 (9)	80.0 (8)
Male	10.0 (1)	20.0 (2)
Age
18-20	40.0 (4)	50.0 (5)
21-23	40.0 (4)	40.0 (4)
24 and up	20.0 (2)	10.0 (1)
Race/ethnicity
White	100.0 (10)	50.0 (5)
Black or African American	0.0 (0)	20.0 (2)
Latino or Hispanic	0.0 (0)	10.0 (1)
Asian or Asian American	0.0 (0)	0.0 (0)
Bi- or multiracial	0.0 (0)	20.0 (2)
Class standing
Freshmen	30.0 (3)	40.0 (4)
Sophomore	20.0 (2)	20.0 (2)
Junior	20.0 (2)	20.0 (2)
Senior	30.0 (3)	20.0 (2)
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual/straight	90.0 (9)	90.0 (9)
Homosexual/gay/lesbian	10.0 (1)	0.0 (0)
Bisexual	0.0 (0)	10.0 (1)
Relationship status
Single and not dating	20.0 (2)	40.0 (4)
Single and dating/hanging out with someone	60.0 (6)	60.0 (6)
Married	20.0 (2)	0.0 (0)

Participants’ Acknowledgment of Embedded Concepts

As can be seen in Table 2, participants who had taken the course more frequently acknowledged the embedded concepts compared with those in the workshop. Utilizing Fisher’s exact test, participants in the course group were significantly more likely to acknowledge the embedded concepts compared with the workshop group for 13 of the 21 embedded concepts. Participants who had taken the course were also more likely to utilize the name of the term in addition to describing the concept compared with the workshop group. The following quotes exemplify this distinction; both were coded as acknowledgment of token resistance in Scene 2, but the participant in the course group named and defined the term, whereas the participant in the workshop group described the concept only: Course Participant:

I think Vicki is doing the token resistance thing . . . she wants to be sexual with him, but she likes him, so she doesn’t want him to think she is slutty, so she is saying no, when she kind of means yes . . . the token resistance.

Workshop Participant:

Well, I think this is definitely like a sexual encounter that could go too far. I get the, like, interpretation that she is kind of saying no, but does not mean, really mean, it thing. She likes what he is doing, but thinks he will think she is a slut, so she says no, but doesn’t seem to mean no. I think she is saying no, but meaning yes. I think that happens a lot.

Table 2.

Acknowledgment of Embedded Concept by Students After Each Scenario.

Embedded concept	Course	Workshop	p value
Scenario 1
Gender stereotypes	8	5	.349
Traditional gender roles	10	7	.210
Hook-up scene	10	10	1
Gender differences in perceptions of friendliness	9	3	.020
Gender perceptions of communication	8	4	.169
Scenario 2
Gender assigned sexual behavior/scripts	10	2	<.001
Male initiator/female gatekeeper/scripted gender roles	10	1	<.001
Gender stereotypes	10	7	.210
Miscommunication and misinterpretation of non-verbal cues	10	4	.011
Traditional sexual script	9	7	.582
Sexual ambivalence	8	0	<.001
Token resistance	9	1	.001
Scenario 3
Acknowledgment of sexual assault/rape	10	1	<.001
Misinterpretation of non-verbal cues	10	7	.210
Non-consent	10	1	<.001
Sexual scripts	9	3	.020
Scenario 4
Victim blaming	10	2	<.001
Rape myths	10	1	<.001
Unacknowledged rape victims	10	7	.210
Scenario 5
Victim blaming	10	1	<.001
Rape myths	10	1	<.001

One of the most important embedded concepts for students to acknowledge was the actual occurrence of sexual assault during the third scene. Students in the course were more likely to acknowledge the occurrence of sexual assault in the scenario compared with those in the workshop (p < .001). The participants in the workshop group were also specifically cued (i.e., they were asked if sexual assault had occurred in the scene) during the interview. The participants in the course were not cued because the entire sample acknowledged sexual assault from the lead-off question (Can you tell me what is going on in this scene?). The following quotes demonstrate this contrast: Interviewer Prompt:

Can you tell me what is going on during this scene?

Course Participant:

Well, if he started having sex with her after she said no then that’s, Well, that’s rape. . . . [Interviewer asks: So you think this was sexual assault?] I think so because after she said no, it like broke the consent . . . after she deliberately said, “No, Pete,” then that was it.

Course Participant:

Pete is raping Vicki. . . . I consider it rape because she said no multiple times, he heard her and acknowledged it, but had sex with her anyway. If he thought she was kidding, he should have asked. It’s his actions that made it non-consensual.

Course Participant:

Something is wrong here; this is kind of, well, it’s rape. . . . [Interviewer asks: So you think what happened was sexual assault?] I think so, because she said, “No, I really think we need to stop.” And Pete just doesn’t listen to her, and he continues to have sex with her anyways. So, that seems like sexual assault, and I think Pete should have stopped.

Interviewer prompt:

Would you say what happened was sexual assault or rape?

Workshop Participant:

Definitely not sexual assault. I mean, it wasn’t that bad.

Workshop Participant:

No, it’s not rape or sexual assault . . . maybe he took advantage, but like, she could have always just left.

In regard to acknowledging the occurrence of rape or sexual assault in the scene, one student contradicted her own definition of sexual assault to maintain the claim that what had transpired in the scene was not sexual assault or rape: Interviewer Prompt:

Would you say what happened was sexual assault or rape?

Workshop Participant:

Right now, it probably sounds bad, but I wouldn’t, but depending on her response . . . If you were to say no, I mean that would be it; like no means no, but everything here is so fuzzy and I still think he shouldn’t have done it to begin with, but as far as it goes right now, I don’t think it’s necessarily rape.

This participant defined sexual assault as saying no (i.e., “If you were to say no, I mean that would be it”), and in the scene Vicki verbalizes the words “no” and “stop” several times, as well as physically moves Pete’s hands away from her lower body. Yet, the participant contradicted herself by not acknowledging the encounter as rape or sexual assault. Although this participant does demonstrate an acknowledgment that Pete’s advances were not “right,” she maintained that it still was not rape.

Victim blaming is another important concept that was specifically embedded in the scenes. All 10 participants in the course group acknowledged victim blaming occurring in both Scenes 4 (p < .001) and 5 (p < .001), whereas only two participants in the workshop group acknowledged victim blaming in scene 4 and one workshop participant acknowledged its occurrence in scene 5. Participants in the course group immediately acknowledged victim blaming after being asked by the interviewer to describe what was going on in the scene; for example: “Well there is a ton of victim blaming,” “Straight up victim blaming,” and “You mean beside the obvious victim blaming?”

Participants in the course group were also more likely than participants in the workshop group to acknowledge rape myths (p < .001); all 10 participants from the course group recognized the endorsement of rape myths by characters in the scenario and overtly stated that the characters were endorsing rape myths, compared with one participant in the workshop group who described the concept of rape myth acceptance but did not specifically use that terminology. For example, when asked to describe what was going on in the scene, one participant from the course group stated,

The men in the scene are endorsing rape myth acceptance . . . they want to blame the victim, but the things they are citing are common rape myths. They don’t happen in most sexual assaults, even though people sometimes think they do.

Another stated, “False reports of rape are really rare. . . . I think, like, less than 10% of the time, so they are just making up rape myths.”

Emerging Themes

In addition to the embedded coding for each scene, participants’ narratives were also assessed across the entire interview to look for emerging themes. Two distinctive and contrasting themes emerged. The most predominant theme to emerge among participants from the course group was the endorsement of the mantra, “No Means No,” in terms of defining sexual assault, regardless of other circumstances. However, the predominant theme to emerge among participants in the workshop group was the endorsement of victim blaming. Victim blaming also emerged among the course participants, but in more subtle ways. It is important to note that although both groups engaged in victim blaming, they did so in unique, nuanced ways that are discussed below.

No Means No

All of the participants in the course group seemed to endorse the belief that regardless of the circumstances or previous sexual activity in which they had engaged, once someone says no to sexual activity, proceeding to sexual intercourse would be considered sexual assault or rape. For example, one participant from the course group stated, “Once she said to him stop, that should have been it, done. Completely.” Another participant acknowledged that Vicki did want to engage in some level of sexual behavior, and that should be considered okay, but once she verbalizes no, the sexual activity should end there.

Course Participant:

She wanted to hook up with him, she wanted to do as much as she was doing and she was fine with that. I think that’s okay. And then once it got to where she didn’t want to, she said, “no, we should stop,” and that’s when he should have stopped, but he didn’t.

In addition, the No Means No theme extended to discussions of who was at fault. The participants in the course group all stated that although there may have been things Vicki could have done differently or been aware of, fault lies with Pete because it was his actions that resulted in sexual assault. For example, one participant stated, “I guess that goes back to saying if you’re going off to a room with somebody, something could happen, but she’s made herself very clear about what she wants right here. So I don’t think it’s her fault.” When another participant described the situation as a sexual assault, the interviewer then asked who was at fault and the participant replied, “Pete, because he didn’t stop. He should have listened to her.” Another participant thought that Vicki could have been more forceful, but made a clear distinction that her lack of forcefulness still did not render her at fault for the sexual assault: Course Participant:

He’s a scumbag trying to convince, like, “Oh no, you’re good,” trying to make her hot. Like trying to make her feel better by saying she’s turning him on. So it’s like, “Oh, good, he likes me too.” Like, “Oh, I’m desirable, la, la, la.” And good for her; she said, “I really think we need to stop,” although she probably should have said, “We need to stop,” instead of “I really think that we do.” But that doesn’t matter; she said no. And she said they had to stop and he kept doing it. And the fact that he climbed on top of her and began having sex with her. Mmm, that’s rape and he’s the one doing it! So it is his fault, not hers.

Victim blaming

The workshop group did not endorse the belief that “no means no” when describing their reactions to the scenes. In fact, participants in the workshop group seemed to imply the opposite. That is, although some defined rape as saying no, the participants in this group overwhelmingly endorsed the idea that even though Vicki said no, she is still responsible for getting into a situation where she could be taken advantage of. The terminology “taken advantage of” was used instead of rape because most of the participants in this group (n = 9) did not acknowledge the occurrence of sexual assault or rape in the scenario. The participants in the workshop group seemed to endorse victim blaming by rationalizing that the situation was Vicki’s fault because Vicki is “dumb,” “naïve,” and “stupid.” For example, after the third scene, one participant demonstrated victim blaming as follows: Interviewer Prompt:

Can you tell me what is going on during this scene?

Workshop Participant:

Okay, I think that Vicki’s an idiot.

Interviewer Prompt:

Why?

Workshop Participant:

Because if you’re at a party, like yeah, it’s cool that she went up and started to talk to him and he talked to her. But if a guy asks you to go somewhere more quiet, it’s kind of like a red flag. Like I don’t know how naïve you are, but like that’s usually not a “let’s go talk and get to know each other.” And if they even say that it’s pretty much just a ploy to get in your pants. So I think that was stupid that she went with him to begin with—that’s why this whole thing happened, because of her dumb choices.

Another participant stated that it was “naïve” of Vicki to think that going downstairs with a guy at a party would not result in sex. Because Vicki agreed to go downstairs with Pete, she was essentially consenting to have sex: Workshop Participant:

Like, I think she’s just really naïve. I think that agreeing to go downstairs with him I think was kind of like stupid. If she went downstairs, she was saying yes to sex and then to go back and say no, I don’t think so, that’s too late. She asked for it.

Another participated stated that Vicki was “so dumb.” When asked why the participant thought she was dumb, the participant replied: Workshop Participant:

I just . . . like she’s just contradicting herself. She is saying no now, but she is already in the room with him. It was dumb of her to get into this situation. She has made her bed, in a sense, ha!

Interviewer:

So would you say she is at fault for what transpired?

Workshop Participant:

Absolutely. It’s going to be her fault. She needs to behave better; she should have known better.

Participants in the workshop group also described Vicki’s behavior as bad, projected negative feelings toward Vicki, or described her negatively in some way. For example, one participant stated, “I don’t think Vicki would notice if he called her when he was drunk because she is so naïve and stupid,” referring to what might transpire between Vicki and Pete after the scenario. Another participant stated, “Anytime there is drinking and a guy, and you go with him somewhere, shit happens. She [Vicki] is being reckless and stupid . . . what a moron.” Other participants described her negatively by saying that the behavior she engaged in demonstrated that she does not have respect for herself. The following quotes exemplify this: Workshop Participant:

But yeah, just personally, if you want to have a little respect for yourself you shouldn’t do anything that makes you super easy or a slut on the first time, if you care. Obviously, Vicki doesn’t care or have respect for herself.”

Workshop Participant:

Like 99% of the time they’re going to think, “Oh, she gave it up the first night I met her.” That’s not exactly who you want to bring home to mom. They’ll court you if they actually want to date you. They won’t date a slut and Vicki is acting like a slut by giving it up the first time you meet.

Although participants in the course group indicated that Vicki was not at fault and endorsed the theme of No Means No regardless of earlier actions, they still demonstrated a more mild endorsement of victim blaming compared with participants in the workshop group. Course group participants’ endorsement of victim blaming was not as blatant or abrasive as the workshop group, however still present. For example, some course participants mentioned that Vicki was too worried about Pete’s feelings, implying that as a result she may be somewhat responsible for what transpired. As exemplified in the following quote, one participant stated that she did not understand why women consider how men will perceive them during sexual encounters, implying that Vicki may be to blame because she was concerned about how Pete and others may perceive her during the sexual encounter. Instead, the participant stated that she thinks women should focus on what they want and how they feel: Course Participant:

I don’t get how girls think so much about the guy in this situation, like Vicki is. Who cares? If you’re worried about your reputation then don’t do it. Obviously hooking up with her is going to forward his reputation, so if she’s worried about herself, then stop worrying about him. Worry about you.

Along the same lines, another participant mentioned that although the sexual assault was not her fault, Vicki should not have been engaging in the behavior out of concern for her reputation, implying that a woman’s outright expression of sexual interest may be used, to an extent, to blame her for an assault.

Course Participant:

“If you don’t want your reputation to be bad, then don’t keep on hooking up with him. Yeah, what happened was rape and yeah it was not her fault, but she should be a little more attentive to not seeming slutty. So other guys don’t think she is a slut.

Another example of the course participants’ subtle endorsement of victim blaming occurred during the final summation, after all the scenes had been heard. At this point in the interview, some participants in the course group made distinctions between Vicki’s behavior and what they would do, which implied mild victim blaming. That is, although they acknowledged that what transpired was a sexual assault/rape, they reiterated that they would not have engaged in such behavior themselves. This implied a desire on the part of the participant to separate themselves from Vicki (the victim) to rationalize why they would not get assaulted. The following quotes exemplify this: Course Participant:

Okay, what happened to her [Vicki] was definitely rape. I think Pete was entirely at fault for it, too. But in listening to the whole thing, I just think that I wouldn’t have gotten myself into that situation . . . what I mean is, I wouldn’t go alone to a room, with a guy I barely know at a party. I know she has every right to, but I just wouldn’t do it. It’s not the smartest decision, but it still doesn’t make it her fault.

Course Participant:

It’s about being cautious. Me personally, I am always cautious about these things, so I wouldn’t behave that way. Yeah, I do party and drink and flirt with guys, but I don’t know, it’s just different than here [referring to the scenario]. Don’t get me wrong, Pete raped her and that makes him a rapist and her the victim and it’s never the victim’s fault. But maybe I have more pride in myself or respect or something. I guess I would just stand up for myself more, so I don’t think I would find myself in this kind of situation and I hope I don’t. (emphasis in original.)

It is important to note that when discussing Vicki, some participants in the course group attempted to distinguish their actions from her actions. Although they did not explicitly say that her actions contributed to the occurrence of sexual assault, they make it a point to mention that they would not behave in the same way. Thus, the implication of these statements is that if Vicki behaved differently she likely would not have been assaulted. In addition, participants stated that Vicki did not have respect for herself, implying, perhaps, that sexual assault may have occurred as a result of her actions or, at the very least, that her actions were in some way flawed, wrong, or inappropriate. These comments also imply that a woman’s engagement in sexual behavior, or even just behaviors that may lead to a sexual encounter, should be conceptualized negatively, thus linking women’s engagement or interest in sex to a negative reputation. Lastly, in this context, the participants’ statements about Vicki also imply that they perceive themselves as smarter or more capable of being safe compared with Vicki, even though one participant noted engaging in drinking and partying, the same behaviors in which Vicki engaged.

Participants in the course group also implied mild victim blaming by stating that Vicki should report the sexual assault. Some participants stated that if Vicki did not report the assault, then she is in some way responsible for perpetuating the occurrence of sexual assault. For example, Course Participant:

I wish she [Vicki] wasn’t so ambivalent about the fact that he assaulted her. I want to say to her, “Girl, this is not your fault, now get your butt to the police so he won’t do it again!” I mean really, what if he does this to another girl, how could she live with herself?

Course Participant:

I feel like it is her [Vicki] duty to report this. If she does nothing, she is kind of saying that what happened is okay. Then he [Pete] is going to think everything is fine and it kind of gives him permission almost to do it again. I mean like, if she doesn’t say anything, then he is going to think it was fine and it wasn’t fine. And he could do it again.

Discussion

Preliminary findings indicate that the course, the alternative sexual assault prevention education initiative, may be more effective than traditional programming in helping students recognize social determinants of sexual assault in the college environment. There were statistically significant differences in participants’ acknowledgment for 13 of the 21 embedded concepts across the scenario. However, a higher frequency of participants in the course group acknowledged all 21 of the embedded codes compared with participants in the workshop group. These findings suggest that participants who had taken the course were better at deconstructing a contextualized environment and pointing out factors that could contribute to sexual assault. Specifically, participants who had taken the course unanimously acknowledged that what transpired between the characters should be considered sexual assault or rape compared with just one participant in the workshop group. This finding has important implications in terms of college students’ endorsement of a rape-supportive culture. Research indicates that the college environment supports, and even fosters, sexual violence against women via low-level coercion, lack of social acknowledgment of sexual assault, and institutional acceptance of sexual violence (Armstrong, Hamilton, & Sweeney, 2006). Such attitudes support victim blaming, discourage women from reporting rape and, in turn, may contribute to women not acknowledging their experiences as acts of sexual assault or non-consensual sex (Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2004, 2011). Therefore, it may be an important first step for students to (a) be able to acknowledge the occurrence of sexual assault between two people who know each other and (b) have the ability to articulate the social circumstances that led to the occurrence of sexual assault. Because the students in the course group were able to do this, they may refrain from endorsing victim blaming, castigate rape-supportive attitudes, and perhaps act as advocates for an anti-rape-supportive environment. Additional research is certainly necessary to examine potential linkages between these factors.

Acknowledgment of Embedded Codes

Both the course and the workshop focused on real-life applications of consent and sexual assault. However, the course extended beyond a focus on consent to also highlight contextualized factors that contribute to sexual assault to help students better understand how sexual assault occurs in the college environment. Given that the discussions surrounding consent were similar for the course and workshop, perhaps the added discussion in the course regarding factors that contribute to sexual assault explains why those students were more likely to acknowledge the occurrence of rape/sexual assault in the scene during the interview. In addition, students who had taken the course, compared with those in the workshop group, more frequently acknowledged victim blaming in the scenes. Perhaps the additional discussion also helped students in the course group better understand the dynamics present in the college environment that contribute to the occurrence of sexual assault, acknowledge circumstances of victim blaming, and articulate why victim blaming occurs.

A criticism of many sexual assault prevention programs offered on campuses throughout the United States is that they often define rape primarily in terms of non-consent (Donat & White, 2000). When rape is conceptualized in terms of non-consent, it is more difficult to come to a complete understanding of sexual assaults that occur between people who know each other, which account for 83% to 90% of sexual assaults among college students (Abbey, 2002; Fisher et al., 2000; Koss, 1985). In addition, when prevention efforts focus so exclusively on the issue of consent, like the one that students were exposed to in this study (workshop group), the larger context in which sexual violence occurs becomes lost. In other words, the focus of such programs is to obtain consent, yet there are many circumstances to consider which influence if and how a verbalization of agreement will occur or be interpreted. For example, previous research has indicated that there are gender differences in how consent is communicated among heterosexual college students (e.g., Hall, 1998; Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013; Jozkowski, Peterson, Sanders, Dennis, & Reece, 2014). When these nuanced factors are brushed over or not addressed at all, students may be inadequately prepared to apply the “just get consent” model in their real-life sexual experiences. As such, getting consent will not seem realistic. Alternatively, the course under examination in this study was specifically tailored to deconstruct the larger cultural context in which sexual assault occurs (i.e., highlight the factors and circumstances that contribute to how consent is interpreted in the larger culture and within the sexual dyad, particularly focusing on how gender may impact such communication). This goal is distinctly different from traditional sexual assault prevention education and extends beyond a focus on consent.

Findings from the current study yield positive results regarding the effectiveness of the course, as participants in the course group, compared with participants in the workshop group, were more likely to recognize the embedded concepts. Acknowledgment of these concepts may imply an understanding of the contextualized environment in which sexual assault occurs. As mentioned earlier, such an understanding may positively influence the rape-supportive culture among college students, such that students may break with social norms to condemn victim blaming and the institutional acceptance of sexual violence. However, further research is needed to understand if, in fact, the ability to deconstruct narratives and recognize concepts that contribute to the occurrence of sexual assault actually contribute to a reduction in the occurrence of sexual assault. Furthermore, future research utilizing a larger sample size is needed to examine the effectiveness and positive value of the course as an alternative approach to sexual assault prevention education.

Emerging Themes

No Means No

The themes that emerged from the participants’ interview narratives also present an interesting contrast between the two groups. The material presented in both the course and workshop endorsed the common mantra, “No Means No,” by emphasizing that if a person says no to sexual activity and that activity transpires, it is considered rape or sexual assault. Despite endorsement of this definition of rape, the ways in which students applied their definition of rape in the scenario differed by group.

“No Means No” is a common mantra utilized since the 1970s feminist movements (Brownmiller, 1975) to emphasize that when a woman says “no” to sex, that “no” should be taken seriously. Although the phrase emerged several decades ago and many college students can recite it, rape justification literature suggests that applying the mantra to real-life sexual encounters is quite different (Armstrong et al., 2006; Muehlenhard, 1988a; Muehlenhard, Friedman, & Thomas, 1985; Muehlenhard & McCoy, 1991). For example, researchers have found that college students believe forcing sex on a woman despite her refusals is justified under certain circumstances, such as the woman flirting, going to a residence with the man, and engaging in some sexual behavior such as making out (Armstrong et al., 2006; DeSantis, 2007; Muehlenhard, 1988b).

Sexual assault prevention education programs have become more refined in their discussions of consent (Donat & White, 2000); however, the “No Means No” mantra is still important and applicable as victims are often overly or subtly blamed for causing or encouraging a man to force sex on them (Armstrong et al., 2006; Muehlenhard, 1988a; Muehlenhard et al., 1985; Muehlenhard & McCoy, 1991). Although participants in the workshop were exposed to a sexual assault prevention education program in which obtaining an unmistakable consent was emphasized, participants in this group did not seem to endorse the idea that no really means no when evaluating the scenario. This was demonstrated when some of the participants rationalized that Pete’s actions were not bad, were not indicative of rape, and his behavior (i.e., forcing sex on Vicki despite her verbal and non-verbal refusals) was justified. Participants rationalized that Pete was justified in pushing her into sex because Vicki led him on and/or gave him signals that she was interested in sexual intercourse. One participant even contradicted herself by stating that “no means no,” but when confronted with the scene in which Vicki says “no” and “stop” several times, even making physical gestures (i.e., moving away from Pete; pushing Pete’s hands away), she does not define the experience as sexual assault. Instead this participant stated that Pete took advantage of Vicki, but that the encounter did not qualify as sexual assault. In this account, then, no did not really mean no to this participant. Such findings are consistent with previous research regarding the endorsement of rape justification among college students (Armstrong et al., 2006; DeSantis, 2007; Muehlenhard, 1988a; Muehlenhard et al., 1985; Muehlenhard & McCoy, 1991).

Rather than endorsing the concept that “no means no,” statements of rape justification were commonly offered among participants in the workshop group as a means to rationalize why they did not define the situation as rape or sexual assault. For example, workshop participants stated that Vicki was “dumb” or “stupid” because she went somewhere alone with Pete, and she should have known that doing so would lead to sex. In fact, participants seemed to imply that in leaving the party with Pete, Vicki had essentially consented to sex and, therefore, when she did refuse in the bedroom, her refusals were seen as irrelevant. Such statements imply that if a woman leaves a party to go somewhere secluded with a man and subsequently decides she does not want to have sex with him, the man is justified in forcing sex on her. This thought process also implies an increased need to better understand how college students conceptualize sexual consent. For example, one participant even stated that Vicki leaving the party with Pete was synonymous with saying yes to sex, and another participant stated that “Vicki asked for it,” which again implied that based on Vicki’s behaviors (i.e., going to a secluded location with Pete), Pete’s actions were justified.

An important caveat to note is that the participants were privy to Vicki’s internal feelings/thoughts. As such, participants were aware that Vicki was interested in some level of sexual behavior (i.e., making out, hand-to-genital touching), although not interested in sexual intercourse (vaginal-penile sex). One might suspect that because the participants were privileged to Vicki’s internal thoughts, they would have been more likely to recognize that she was interested in engaging in some sexual behavior with Pete but not sexual intercourse. However, perhaps the victim-blaming mentality has been so engrained in young people that a 60-min workshop session was less than adequate to break some of these widely held norms.

Participants in the course group, however, strongly endorsed the No Means No theme. Across the scenes, participants in the course group distinguished between behaviors that Vicki could do to reduce the likelihood of being in a situation that resulted in sexual assault (i.e., not leaving the part with Pete, telling a friend where she was going) and the prevention of sexual assault. Participants recognized that Vicki could engage in some risk reducing behaviors but maintained that the sexual assault was Pete’s fault because his actions made the event non-consensual and therefore only he could prevent it from occurring. As previously stated, participants’ ability to articulate this important distinction may demonstrate a greater understanding of victim-blaming culture and result in a refusal to engage institutional acceptance of sexual violence within the college culture.

Victim blaming

Like the No Means No theme, participants differed in their endorsement of victim blaming. In this case, students from both the workshop and course groups endorsed victim blaming; however, students’ endorsement of victim blaming was more nuanced than the No Means No theme. That is, participants in the workshop group appeared to endorse more intense and pointed forms of victim blaming compared with those in the course group, who demonstrated subtler, less overt forms of victim blaming. For example, all of the participants in the workshop group used words such as “stupid,” “dumb,” “naïve,” and “idiot” to describe Vicki, and implied that because Vicki possessed such characteristics, she was fully, or at least partially, at fault for the encounter with Pete. Again, such findings demonstrate that participants in the workshop group failed to recognize that Pete’s actions made the sexual encounter non-consensual. They also failed to distinguish between factors and behaviors that could reduce the likelihood of an assault compared with mechanisms to prevent the assault, which the course group did acknowledge and could clearly articulate. On one hand, participants in the workshop group engaged in classic forms of victim blaming (Burt, 1980) by stating that Vicki was naïve and should have known better. In trying to determine whether or not what had transpired should be considered rape, participants in the workshop group stated that “it [the sexual assault] did not sound bad” and that Vicki could have left or fought back, other common examples of victim blaming (Burt, 1980; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). Victim blaming is a hallmark of a rape-supportive culture. Therefore, when college students endorse victim blaming, they are contributing to a rape-supportive environment (i.e., an environment that accepts and perpetuates sexual assault). If students who have been exposed to some form of sexual assault prevention education still endorse victim blaming to the extent that those in the current study did, the college campus could potentially be a dangerous and detrimental place for victims of sexual assault and women in general.

Participants in the course group, on the other hand, expressed more nuanced forms of victim blaming. For example, participants noted that Vicki may have been able to take certain steps to reduce the likelihood of being in a situation where sexual assault could occur; however, participants were very clear in articulating that Pete’s actions made the sexual encounter non-consensual and, therefore, what transpired was sexual assault and Vicki was not at fault. This distinction is important because it indicates that students in the course group truly understand and can articulate the difference between prevention and risk reduction. The ability to make this distinction implies a refined level of understanding and perhaps renders students less likely to commit sexual assault or victim blame. Future research is needed to better understand if being able to make this distinction has any impact on reducing the prevalence of sexual assault or helps to foster an anti-rape-supportive environment.

In addition to the distinction between prevention and risk reduction, participants in the two groups also demonstrated varying levels of judgmental attitudes toward Vicki. Those in the workshop group engaged in more obvious victim blaming via judgmental comments about Vicki’s choices and interest in sexual behavior with Pete (e.g., participants called Vicki a slut) as well as blanket statements during the interview that demonstrated victim blaming (e.g., “this happened because of her dumb choices”). For instance, participants stated that Vicki could have had more respect for herself, implying that because Vicki engaged in making out and petting with Pete, she lacked self-respect, which in turn made it easier for individuals to rationalize that Pete’s actions did not equate to sexual assault.

Similar judgmental attitudes were demonstrated among participants in the course group, but not to the same extent as participants’ statements in the workshop group. As stated previously, the course participants demonstrated a higher level of understanding and refinement when it came to distinguishing between prevention and risk reduction; however, some participants still implied that women should remain somewhat chaste or at least be sexually selective so as not to be thought of negatively (e.g., “easy” or “slutty”). This was demonstrated in subtler ways compared with participants in the workshop group, who overtly labeled Vicki a slut. Instead, those in the course group stated that they would not behave that way. Such statements seemed to indicate that something was wrong with the way Vicki behaved in the scenarios with the natural underlying implication being that Vicki was somewhat responsible for the sexual activity that transpired. Perhaps the inherent belief that women who engage in sexual behavior with casual partners should be characterized negatively is so engrained in American cultural views of women that the belief structure could not be altered even in a course that seemed to dispel common beliefs regarding victim blaming. Such findings nevertheless point to a distinction between the two groups, suggesting that the course could be a step in the right direction in terms of altering such attitudes in a positive way, producing less victim blame. However, it is likely that to fully eliminate a victim-blaming mentality, structural interventions would need to target the social environment.

Study Limitations and Future Research

Although interesting findings emerged from the current study, it is important to acknowledge limitations. First, the sample sizes of both groups were small, making results preliminary. Future research should be conducted to determine if such findings would be consistent over time, among a larger sample of students. In addition, no pre-tests were administered to either group. Consequently, participants in either group may have had a propensity toward certain ways of thinking and conceptualizing the issues prior to their participation in the course or workshop. However, this effect is thought to be minimized because the course was taken as an elective and did not contain language in the title indicating a focus on rape culture. Future research should utilize some form of pre-test to assess participants’ pre-existing understanding of determinants that contribute to sexual assault. Lastly, not all students who were enrolled in the course were included in the study. Due to limitations in time and resources, only a sub-sample of the students in the course participated in the study. Future research should include all students enrolled in the course to assess a larger sample as well as determine if there are substantial differences among students in the course. Finally, future research should examine the link between being able to first recognize factors that contribute to sexual assault and then articulate how such factors contribute to sexual assault and the actual occurrence of sexual assault.

Sexual Assault Prevention Education

Researchers have indicated that despite prevention efforts, rates of sexual assault have remained relatively consistent over the past five decades (Adams-Curtis & Forbes, 2004; Marine, 2004; Sampson, 2002). Although most prevention programs demonstrate some form of positive result, whether in terms of increasing sexual assault-related knowledge or positive attitudes, such changes were often present immediately after exposure to the program and were fleeting (Breitenbecher, 2000). Lonsway and colleagues (1998) emphasized that increasing the duration of the prevention initiative may be beneficial for improving sustained changes in attitudes or beliefs. The course was implemented over a 4-month period, which is more consistent with Lonsway and colleagues’ (1998) recommendations compared with other prevention efforts. In addition, extending the time between the termination of the prevention initiative and assessment of effectiveness was also recommended to account for attitudinal rebounding and to demonstrate true shifts in attitudes and beliefs (Heppner et al., 1995; Lonsway et al., 1998). Given that the current study was conducted several months after the course was completed, it is likely that participants’ attitudes were established at that point in time, rather than assessing participants immediately after the course had terminated. In addition, perhaps the tools that are often utilized to evaluate sexual assault prevention education are inadequate. Beres (2007) called for a shift in the way researchers and educators conceptualize consent (which is the focus of many sexual assault prevention education efforts), and Donat and White (2000) recommended that prevention efforts should focus more on the contextualized environment. Perhaps the ways in which we assess effectiveness need to shift as well. As such, the current study demonstrates an attempt to understand students’ ability to recognize and articulate factors in the college environment that contribute to sexual assault. Future sexual assault prevention efforts may benefit from focusing on these broader, contextualized issues.

Recommendations for Future Prevention Initiatives

The larger cultural context in which sexual assault and sexual violence occurs on college campuses may be lost when prevention efforts focus almost exclusively on emphasizing that students should obtain consent in the sexual dyad. Such conceptualizations of rape suggest that either the raped woman displayed behavioral signs of consent or did not communicate her non-consent clearly (Beres, 2007; Donat & White, 2000). Findings from the current study support the accuracy of these conceptualizations of rape as the participants in the workshop group (i.e., those who were exposed to a sexual assault prevention program focused primarily on telling students to obtain consent) stated that despite Vicki’s refusals to engage in sexual intercourse, the event should not be considered rape. Workshop participants stated that because she went downstairs with Pete and engaged in kissing and intimate touching, her refusal of sexual intercourse was irrelevant, thus suggesting that her earlier actions indicated behavioral signs of consent, which meant that later refusals could be ignored or considered inconsequential. In addition, workshop participants stated that Vicki could have left the room or fought back if she did not want to engage in sexual intercourse, thereby implying that her non-consent was unclear. These findings highlight the continued need for prevention efforts to provide more comprehensive education regarding sexual assault occurring between individuals who know one another.

Sexual assault prevention education programs also often cite miscommunication as a determinant of sexual assault among college students. Therefore, such programs frequently focus on teaching college students how to clearly negotiate consent to avoid a miscommunication that could result in rape. The current data support this conceptualization because participants in the workshop group indicated that what transpired between the characters was a miscommunication, or Pete taking advantage of Vicki, but not rape. However, under this framework, the act of rape is not conceptualized as such or gets described as a behavior that occurs in isolation, rather it is discussed in the context of the college sexual environment (Bogle, 2008). In addition, fault for the rape tends to fall on the woman in such conceptualizations. This was also demonstrated in the current data as workshop participants often blamed Vicki for the events that transpired and cited many actions she should have taken to prevent what happened. However, workshop participants rarely focused on the ways in which Pete was at fault or actions he could have taken to change the outcomes of the event. The underlying message that students receive from many prevention programs is that a woman should avoid certain behaviors and situations because of how they may influence others’ decisions regarding her consent (e.g., take-away messages such as women need to watch how much they have to drink because they may do something, like go home with a guy, that they would not do when sober and this could result in sexual assault). Yet, there seems to be a lack of emphasis on the importance of informing men about their roles (e.g., telling men that alcohol could cloud judgment and they need to take extra measures to ensure consent). Furthermore, little, if any, attention is given to addressing the social dynamics that encourage drinking alcohol, casual sexual encounters without communication, gender-scripted sexual behavior roles, and lack of clear communication of consent. Instead, the focus of programs like the workshop is to suggest that couples engage in open verbal consent for all sexual activity. Although this may seem important and perhaps be the only take-home message that such programs can instill in 45-120 min, based on current and previous findings (Breitenbecher, 2000; Schewe, 2006), it is unlikely to reduce incidence of acquaintance rape because it ignores the social context in which acquaintance rape occurs (Donat & White, 2000).

The course examined in this study was designed with a new conceptualization of rape in mind—a conceptualization that does not focus on a woman’s consent but rather on an analysis of sexual assault’s broader social context. Understanding the broader social context is integral to understanding how and why acquaintance rape occurs and why it is institutionally accepted on many campuses (Armstrong et al., 2006). Perhaps shifting the focus of sexual assault prevention education initiatives to one that emphasizes the broader contextualized environment may prove successful in altering rates of sexual assault. The current study, although preliminary, suggests that students exposed to an intensive course may better understand these larger issues of sexual violence. However an understanding of such issues may not immediately translate into reductions in sexual assault. Further research and implementation of intensive, course-based sexual assault prevention education are needed to determine if such initiatives have an influence. It is also important to acknowledge the time, effort, and funding that are required to conduct such efforts on college campuses. Colleges and universities, although required to sponsor assault prevention programs to receive federal funds (National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 1994), often do not provide much support in the way of monetary funding and people power for sexual assault prevention education. Armstrong and colleagues (2006), however, stated that increased efforts at the institutional level are imperative if there will ever be reductions in sexual assault on university and college campuses in the United States.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge and thank Ms. Carol McCord for her assistance on this study.

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 disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author received financial support for this study from the HPER Student Research Grant at Indiana University

Author Biography

Kristen N. Jozkowski earned her PhD in health behavior from the Department of Applied Health Science at Indiana University. She is currently an assistant professor of Public Health, Lab Director for the Sexual Health Research Lab, and affiliate faculty in Gender Studies at the University of Arkansas and a Kinsey Research Fellow with the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction at Indiana Univeristy. Her research focuses on sexual consent, sexual assault prevention, and promoting positive sexuality and healthy sexual encounters.

References

Abbey

(2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 118-128.

Adams-Curtis

Forbes

(2004). College women’s experiences of sexual coercion: A review of cultural, perpetrator, victim and situational variables. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5, 91-122.

Armstrong

E. A.

Hamilton

Sweeney

(2006). Sexual assault on campus: A multilevel integrative approach to party rape. Social Problems, 53, 483-499.

Banerjee

Capozzoli

McSweeney

Sinha

(1999). Beyond kappa: A review of interrater agreement measures. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 27, 3-23.

Barth

R. P.

Derezotes

D. S.

Danforth

H. E.

(1991). Preventing adolescent abuse. Journal of Primary Prevention, 11, 193-205.

Beres

M. A.

(2007). “Spontaneous” sexual consent: An analysis of sexual consent literature. Feminism & Psychology, 17, 93-108.

Bogle

(2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating and relationships on campus. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Breitenbecher

(2000). Sexual assault on college campuses: Is an ounce of prevention enough? Applied & Prevention Psychology, 9, 23-52.

Brownmiller

(1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York: Ballantine.

10.

Burt

(1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.

11.

Carmody

(2005). Ethical erotics: Reconceptualizing anti-rape education. Sexualities, 8, 465-480.

12.

Carspecken

P. F.

(1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge.

13.

Cass

A. I.

(2007). Routine activities and sexual assault: An analysis of individual-and school-level factors. Violence and Victims, 22, 350-366.

14.

Currier

D. M.

Carlson

J. H.

(2009). Creating attitudinal change though teaching: How a course on “Women and Violence” changes students’ attitudes about violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1735-1754.

15.

Daigle

L. E.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

(2008). The violent and sexual victimization of college women: Is repeat victimization a problem? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1296-1313.

16.

Dallager

Rosen

L. A.

(1993). Effects of a human sexuality course on attitudes toward rape and violence. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19, 193-199.

17.

DeSantis

(2007). Inside Greek U.: Fraternities, sororities, and the pursuit of power, pleasure, and prestige. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

18.

Donat

P. L. N.

White

J. W.

(2000). Re-examining the issue of non-consent in acquaintance rape. In Travis

C. B.

White

J. W.

(Eds.), Sexuality, society, & feminism (pp. 355-376). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

19.

Field

H. S.

(1978). Attitudes toward rape: A comparative analysis of police, rapists, crises counselors, and citizens. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 156-179.

20.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

21.

Habermas

(1984). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalizations of society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

22.

Hall

D. S.

(1998, August 10). Consent for sexual behavior in a college student population. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality. Retrieved from http://www.ejhs.org/volume1/consent1.htm

23.

Heppner

M. J.

Humphrey

C. F.

Hillenbrand-Gunn

T. L.

DeBord

K. A.

(1995). The differential effects of rape prevention programming on attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 508-518.

24.

Hesse-Biber

S. N.

Leavy

P. L.

(2007). Feminist research practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Peterson

Z. D.

(2013). College students and sexual consent: Unique insights. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 517-523. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.700739

26.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Peterson

Z. D.

Sanders

S. A.

Dennis

Reece

(2014). Gender differences in heterosexual college students’ conceptualizations and indicators of sexual consent: Implications for contemporary sexual assault prevention education. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 904-916. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.792326

27.

Koss

M. P.

(1985). The hidden rape victim: Personality, attitudinal, and situational characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 193-212.

28.

Lonsway

K. A.

(1996). Preventing acquaintance rape through education: What do we know? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 229-265.

29.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

(1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133-164.

30.

Lonsway

K. A.

Klaw

E. L.

Berg

D. R.

Waldo

C. R.

Kothari

Mazurek

C. J.

. (1998). Beyond “no means no”: Outcomes of an intensive program to train peer facilitators for campus acquaintance rape education. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 73-92.

31.

Lott

Reilly

M. E.

Howard

D. R.

(1982). Sexual assault and harassment: A campus community case study. Signs, 8, 296-319.

32.

Lottes

I. L.

(1992). The relationship between nontraditional gender roles and sexual coercion. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 4(4), 89-109.

33.

Marine

(2004, November 26). Waking up from the nightmare of rape. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B5.

34.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

(1988a). Misinterpreting dating behaviors and the risk of date rape. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 6, 20-37.

35.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

(1988b). “Nice women” don’t say yes and “real men” don’t say no: How miscommunication and the double standard can cause sexual problems. Women & Therapy, 7, 95-108.

36.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

Friedman

D. E.

Thomas

C. M.

(1985). Is date rape justifiable? The effects of dating activity, who initiated, who paid and men’s attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 297-310.

37.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

Hollabaugh

L. C.

(1988). Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women’s token resistance to sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 872-879.

38.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

McCoy

M. L.

(1991). Double standard/double bind: The sexual double standard and women’s communication about sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 447-461.

39.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

Rodgers

(1998). Token resistance to sex: New perspectives on an old stereotype. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 443-463.

40.

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (1994, August). Complying with the final regulations: The student’s right to know and Campus Security Act. Washington, DC: Author.

41.

Perreault

W. D.

Leigh

L. E.

(1989). Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 135-148.

42.

Peterson

Z. D.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

(2004). Was it rape? The function of women’s rape myth acceptance and definitions of sex in labeling their own experiences. Sex Roles, 51, 129-144.

43.

Peterson

Z. D.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

(2011). A match-and-motivation model of how women label their nonconsensual sexual experiences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 558-570. doi:10.1177/0361684311410210

44.

Sampson

(2002). Acquaintance rape of college students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

45.

Schaeffer

A. M.

Nelson

E. S.

(1993). Rape-supportive attitudes: Effects of on-campus residence and education. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 174-179.

46.

Schewe

P. A.

(2006). Interventions to prevent sexual violence. In Schewe

P. A.

(Ed.), Preventing violence in relationships: Interventions across the life span (pp. 223-239). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

47.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(2006). Extent, nature, and consequences of rape victimization: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.