Rape Aggression Defense: Unique Self-Efficacy Benefits for Survivors of Sexual Trauma

Abstract

Self-defense training is consistently linked to psychological benefits for survivors of sexual trauma, yet little is known about how training may uniquely benefit survivors compared with their nonsurvivor peers enrolled in the same course. Path analysis was used to examine how history of sexual trauma impacts pre- and post-training scores on three domains of self-efficacy using a national sample of Rape Aggression Defense (RAD) participants. All participants reported significant increases in self-efficacy domains, and sexual trauma history significantly predicted pre-training interpersonal self-efficacy and post-training self-defense self-efficacy, suggesting that self-defense training confers benefits for survivors above and beyond benefits for other participants.

Keywords

self-defense sexual trauma self-efficacy

Introduction

Considerable research has provided evidence for the most and least effective means of resisting a potential sexual assault. In general, resistance of any kind is associated with rape avoidance (Brecklin & Ullman, 2005; Kleck & Sayles, 1990; Quinsey & Upfold, 1985; Siegel, Sorenson, Golding, Burnam, & Stein, 1989; Tark & Kleck, 2014; for a review, see Brecklin, 2008 and Ullman, 2007), whereas the absence of resistance is associated with completed rape (Atkeson, Calhoun, & Morris, 1989; Bart & O’Brien, 1984; Kleck & Sayles, 1990; Ullman & Knight, 1991; Zoucha-Jensen & Coyne, 1993). Rape avoiders tend to use many more strategies than women who experience completed rape (Bart & O’Brien, 1985; Cohen, 1984; Ullman, 1990); although when examined separately, forceful physical resistance (e.g., hitting, kicking, biting, scratching) and forceful verbal resistance (e.g., yelling, screaming) have been found to be the two most effective forms of rape resistance (Bart & O’Brien, 1985; Clay-Warner, 2002; Cohen, 1984; Guerette & Santana, 2010; Kleck & Sayles, 1990; Levine-MacCombie & Koss, 1986; Quinsey & Upfold, 1985; Ruback & Ivie, 1988; Siegel et al., 1989; Ullman & Knight, 1992, 1993; Zoucha-Jensen & Coyne, 1993).

Not surprisingly, formal self-defense programs, such as Rape Aggression Defense (RAD), teach participants to effectively use these forceful techniques during attack situations to decrease the likelihood of a completed rape. Research has suggested that participation in these courses may be related to rape avoidance (Bart & O’Brien, 1985; Brecklin & Ullman, 2005; Hollander, 2014; Peri, 1991; Senn et al., 2015), yet the benefits of self-defense training extend far beyond rape deterrence. Women with a history of sexual trauma report experiencing significant improvements in a variety of psychological domains (Anderson, 1998; Brecklin & Ullman, 2004; David, Simpson, & Cotton, 2006; for a review, see Gidycz & Dardis, 2014), and, as such, it appears that self-defense training may uniquely impact survivors of sexual trauma. Yet, the methodology of previous studies constrains the ability to directly examine this. The current study sought to address this gap by differentiating women with and without a history of sexual trauma within the same self-defense program.¹

Benefits of Self-Defense

With few exceptions, extensive research has supported formal self-defense training as a means of improving a number of psychological outcomes, both immediately and at follow-up (for a review, see Brecklin, 2008). Self-defense training has been linked to higher self-esteem (Rowe, 1993), increases in perceptions of internal control, and decreases in perceptions of external control at immediate post-test (Lidsker, 1991) compared with wait-list control groups. When comparing individual changes at pre- and post-training, participants report significant increases in self-esteem at immediate (Smith, 1983) and 3-month follow-ups (Frost, 1991) and decreases in feelings of helplessness relating to a potential sexual assault (Kidder, Boell, & Moyer, 1983) at immediate and 3-month follow-ups (Frost, 1991), as well as reductions in anxiety symptoms (Shim, 1998) and intrusive negative thoughts about sexual assault at immediate post-test and at a 6-month follow-up (Ozer & Bandura, 1990). Some gains, however, were not significant when compared with a control group (Frost, 1991; Smith, 1983). A handful of studies have found increases in self-defense participants’ assertiveness from pre- to post-test (Weitlauf, Smith, & Cervone, 2000) in comparison with a control group (Lidsker, 1991), although these increases were not maintained over a 6-month follow-up (S. O. Michener, 1996; Weitlauf et al., 2000). Feelings of vulnerability to and fear of sexual assault have also been impacted by formal self-defense training. Some studies have found that, following self-defense training, women feel less vulnerable to sexual assault (Ozer & Bandura, 1990) and report having fewer location-based fears (Shim, 1998) at immediate and 6-month follow-ups (Ozer & Bandura, 1990; Shim, 1998).

Self-defense training has consistently been linked to psychological benefits for women in general, and a smaller body of literature has found unique benefits for survivors of sexual trauma, both when the training was received pre- and post-assault. Post-assault training is more commonly associated with self-defense training given the tendency for these classes to draw a higher percentage of victimized women compared to national norms (e.g., Brecklin & Ullman, 2005), yet it is studied less often (for a review, see Brecklin, 2011). Understanding the outcomes of post-assault training is particularly important, as victimized women are more likely to be revictimized than nonvictimized women (Kilpatrick, 2000). Moreover, prior history of sexual victimization is associated with the use of nonassertive resistance and/or absence of assertive resistance in subsequent assaults (Atkeson et al., 1989; Gidycz, Van Wynsberghe, & Edwards, 2008; Norris, Nurius, & Dimeff, 1996; Nurius & Norris, 1996; Nurius, Norris, Dimeff, & Graham, 1996; Vanzile-Tamsen, Testa, & Livingston, 2005). This is especially true for individuals with a history of childhood sexual trauma (Siegel et al., 1989; Stoner et al., 2007). As such, survivors of sexual trauma are arguably the most critical population for self-defense classes to target.

Similar to pre-assault training (Brecklin, 2008; Brecklin & Ullman, 2005; Gidycz, Rich, Orchowski, King, & Miller, 2006; Orchowski, Gidycz, & Raffle, 2008), post-assault training is associated with psychological benefits for survivors compared with nontrained survivors, including decreases in anxiety and an increased likelihood to label one’s experience as a sexual assault (Brecklin & Ullman, 2004). Survivors who received post-assault training also reported increases in self-confidence, self-care, self-efficacy, assertiveness, perceived control, and feelings of anger. Many survivors felt that the opportunity to physically defend themselves against attackers during the training sessions helped them work through their own prior traumas and release pent-up anger (Anderson, 1998). Two hybrid self-defense courses led to participants’ increases in confidence to defend oneself and decreased feelings of helplessness (Schuiteman, 1990) and assault-related fear, though these reductions were not maintained over the 3- and 6-month follow-ups (David et al., 2006). Participants also reported significant improvements in their ability to identify risky situations at both immediate and 3-month follow-ups and experienced reductions in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom severity over time. Increases in activities self-efficacy, interpersonal self-efficacy, and self-defense self-efficacy were maintained over the 6-month follow-up (David et al., 2006).

Two studies found that although survivors reported lower baseline self-efficacy and perceived control over their lives and greater perceived vulnerability to assault than nonsurvivors (i.e., women without a history of sexual trauma) enrolled in a self-defense program, these differences were no longer apparent following completion of the course (Lidsker, 1991; Ozer & Bandura, 1990) and at a 6-month follow-up (Ozer & Bandura, 1990). Most studies examining the effects of post-assault training have compared trained survivors with nontrained survivors or have compared survivors’ own pre- and post-scores to determine the impact of the program. Few studies have compared survivors with nonsurvivors enrolled in the same self-defense course, so little is known about how this training may be uniquely experienced by survivors.

RAD is a multifaceted self-defense program that incorporates both education and action (Nadeau, 2006). Students are taught the four “risks” of personal safety (i.e., risk awareness, risk reduction, risk recognition, and risk avoidance), legal definitions, vulnerable locations on the body, and numerous ways to utilize different body parts as weapons. Participants then must use learned skills to defend against a simulated attack scenario during which an instructor is dressed in heavy padding at the end of the course (Nadeau, 2006). To date, a small handful of self-defense studies have used the RAD course to explore the psychological impact of formal self-defense training (Brecklin & Middendorf, 2014; Brody, 2008; Cox, 1999; S. O. Michener, 1996; T. D. Michener, 1997). An examination of a female adolescent sample found that girls who participated in RAD experienced significant increases in self-reported self-esteem, self-concept, behavioral adjustment, freedom from anxiety, and happiness compared with a control group that did not take RAD (Brody, 2008). Another study utilizing an adult population found that, compared with women who did not take RAD, women who completed the RAD course experienced significant increases in interpersonal self-efficacy, self-defense self-efficacy, assertiveness, and perceived control, and significant decreases in helplessness and defenselessness (S. O. Michener, 1996). Similarly, a study that compared RAD and a martial arts–based self-defense program with a comparison group of undergraduates found significant increases in activities self-efficacy, interpersonal self-efficacy, self-defense self-efficacy, and a significant decrease in assessment of risk for women in general (Cox, 1999).

A qualitative examination of RAD found that group dynamics helped to enhance participants’ self-confidence, empowerment, and ability to learn and effectively execute techniques. Specifically, Brecklin and Middendorf (2014) found that close relationships developed across RAD participants, which allowed participants to share their experiences with and be encouraging of each other. The mock-attack scenarios which take place at the end of RAD training also afforded women the opportunity to increase self-efficacy vicariously through observing fellow classmates use self-defense techniques effectively (Brecklin & Middendorf, 2014). Not surprisingly, when comparing RAD courses that did and did not use simulated assaults, participants who experienced the simulated assault had moderately higher self-defense self-efficacy than participants who did not experience the simulated assault (T. D. Michener, 1997), suggesting that the opportunity to practice the physical components of self-defense in simulated real-life situations may not only strengthen women’s perceived ability to use the strategies learned but also provide vicarious experiences from which participants can increase their self-efficacy simply by watching others.

Self-Efficacy as a Measure of Effectiveness

It can be challenging to study the use of trained self-defensive techniques in future assault scenarios due to common issues associated with longitudinal data collection (e.g., attrition) and reliance on accurate and detailed self-reporting by a traumatized population (Halligan, Michael, Clark, & Ehlers, 2003). As such, measuring domains of self-efficacy may instead provide adequate information regarding the practicality and effectiveness of self-defense training. Self-efficacy appears to be one of the most enduring benefits of self-defense training; its increases are often maintained over 3- and 6-month follow-ups (David et al., 2006; Orchowski et al., 2008; Ozer & Bandura, 1990), unlike other psychological benefits that seem to dissipate or return to baseline over time (S. O. Michener, 1996; Weitlauf et al., 2000). Self-efficacy describes an individual’s belief in his or her ability to engage in appropriate actions in a given scenario (Ozer & Bandura, 1990), and it is theorized to be a crucial determinant of behavior and decision making (Bandura, 1977). According to Bandura (1982), “Self-efficacy judgments, whether accurate or faulty, influence choice of activities and environmental settings” (p. 123). Not only does self-efficacy impact the initiation of coping behavior, it also determines how much effort is exerted and how long the coping behavior will continue to be expended in the face of adversity (Bandura, 1977). Therefore, individuals with high levels of self-efficacy may be more likely to engage in self-defensive techniques, and fight back longer, when confronted with an attack, whereas individuals with low levels of self-efficacy may believe that the overwhelming scenario exceeds their coping capabilities, and, as such, they may avoid defending themselves and become an easier target for a completed rape.

Indeed, self-efficacy has been positively linked to a variety of behavioral and motivational outcomes in work-related performance (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998), positive health behavior (Bandura, 1990), and clinical (Bandura, Adams, Hardy, & Howells, 1980) and educational settings (Schunk, 1989, 1995). In women who were sexually victimized over a 2-month follow-up, those who had received self-defense training experienced increases in self-efficacy whereas those who did not receive the training experienced gradual decreases in self-efficacy over time (Orchowski et al., 2008). Ozer and Bandura (1990) identified and measured three domains of self-efficacy that may be targeted by self-defense training: activities self-efficacy, or the ability to engage in various recreational activities; interpersonal self-efficacy, or the ability to cope effectively with various threatening interpersonal encounters; and self-defense self-efficacy, or the ability to execute self-defense techniques in a variety of assaultive situations. Prior to self-defense training, women with a history of sexual trauma reported lower interpersonal self-efficacy, greater perceived vulnerability to sexual assault, and were more avoidant in their everyday behavior than women without a history of sexual trauma (Ozer & Bandura, 1990), suggesting that survivors of sexual trauma have overall lower self-efficacy than nonsurvivors. Moreover, self-efficacy plays an important role in posttraumatic recovery and is inversely related to posttraumatic stress (for a review, see Benight & Bandura, 2004). Given the tendency to experience lower self-efficacy coupled with the healing impact that perceived control and self-efficacy can have for survivors of sexual trauma, it may be that activities that increase self-efficacy (e.g., self-defense training) are even more impactful for survivors compared to nonsurvivors.

Despite promising evidence of their effectiveness, research on RAD and other self-defense programs has thus far neglected to compare groups of participants within the same training program on the various benefits of self-defense training among groups of participants within the same training program. Moreover, research on post-assault training has focused primarily on adult sexual assault rather than including any lifetime sexual trauma. One important comparison to be made is between participants who have a history of sexual trauma—including both child and adult sexual trauma—and those who do not. By examining pre- and post-training self-efficacy differences among women with and without a lifetime history of sexual trauma, the unique benefits of self-defense training for survivors of sexual trauma may be better understood. The current study sought to extend the breadth of research on the psychological benefits of post-assault self-defense training by examining changes in self-efficacy domains among and between survivors of sexual trauma compared with nonsurvivors enrolled in RAD programs across the country.

It was hypothesized that all participants, regardless of sexual trauma history, would report significant increases in all three domains of self-efficacy. Second, it was hypothesized that survivors of sexual trauma, compared with nonsurvivors, would have lower pre-training activities self-efficacy, interpersonal self-efficacy, and self-defense self-efficacy scores, and would report higher post-training scores in the aforementioned domains as a result of their previous victimization.

Method

Participants

Data were obtained from 233 women aged 18 years and above enrolled in the RAD self-defense program. Participants were recruited from RAD programs sponsored by police departments or universities nationwide. RAD trainings typically range from 9-12 hr over the course of approximately three or four sessions (R.A.D. FAQ’s, n.d.), Following approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board and RAD Systems, universities and police departments across the country were contacted and asked about their willingness to include their course in the study. Instructors who agreed were subsequently provided an online survey link and were asked to distribute the link to all students signed up for the course, with instruction to complete the survey before the first RAD class. RAD students were assured that their participation, or lack thereof, in the study had no bearing on their standing in the RAD course. In addition, students were instructed that, at the end of the survey, they would have the option to enter their email address up to two times into a drawing to win one of 10 US$25 Amazon.com gift cards.

Participants ranged in age from 18-75 years, with a mean age of 32 (SD = 13.98), median age of 26, and modal age of 18 (n = 18). Participants identified as 74.7% Caucasian, 7.7% African American/Black, 5.6% Hispanic, 4.7% Asian, 1.3% Native American, and 2% Other. Nine participants did not indicate their race or ethnicity. Annual household income levels ranged from less than US$10,000 to more than US$50,000, with a median income range of US$10,000-US$20,000. Undergraduate students comprised 47.9% of the sample, graduate students comprised 7.8% of the sample, and the remaining 44.3% were neither. A total of 42% indicated that they were employed full-time, 36.1% were employed part-time, 8.2% were unemployed but searching for employment, and 13.7% were unemployed by choice. The current sample included 44% reporting experiencing any kind of unwanted sexual contact, with 25% of the sample experiencing penetrative contact meeting the definition of rape.

Measures

National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS)

The NVAWS (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998) is a self-report measure of lifetime traumatic events, with an emphasis on sexual victimization. Participants who endorse experiencing unwanted sexual contact are prompted to answer a series of behaviorally specific items ranging from completed rape (e.g., “Has a man or boy ever made you have sex by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you? Just so there is no mistake, by sex we mean putting a penis in your vagina.”) to attempted rape or sexual contact (i.e., “Other than the incidents that we’ve already discussed, have there been any other situations that did not involve actual sexual contact between you and another person but did involve an attempt by someone to force you to have any kind of unwanted sexual contact?”). To maintain consistency with prior self-defense research (e.g., Brecklin & Ullman, 2004), survivors (coded as 1) were defined as women who reported experiencing any lifetime forced or coerced vaginal, oral, or anal penetration; touching of breasts, pubic area, or perpetrator’s pubic area; or any attempted sexual assault. Nonsurvivors (coded as 0) were defined as women who did not endorse experiencing any of the aforementioned encounters.

Self-Efficacy Scale

The Self-Efficacy Scale (Ozer & Bandura, 1990) measures perceptions of ability in three domains, each measured by items that ask participants to rate their perceived certitude that they could execute specific actions effectively in given situations on a scale ranging from 0 (complete uncertainty) to 10 (complete certitude). Activities self-efficacy comprised 17 items that examine perceived ability to engage in various recreational activities, including travel, using public transportation, and engagement in social activities, both alone and with a female friend (e.g., “How confident are you that you can, as of now, go to a restaurant by yourself at night?”). Interpersonal self-efficacy is comprised of eight multi-item questions that measure participants’ ability to cope effectively with potential social and dating threats, including coercive encounters within dating situations, at work, at parties, or in public (e.g., “You are standing on a crowded bus when the man standing next to you puts his hand on your buttocks and leans his body into yours. How confident are you that you can, as of now, ask him to remove his hand?”). Self-defense self-efficacy comprised 12 multi-item questions that measure participants’ ability to execute a variety of self-defense techniques in response to a range of assaultive attacks (e.g., “You are grabbed from behind and the assailant pulls you down onto the ground. How confident are you that you can, as of now, turn your body and forcefully use a side-thrust kick?”). Techniques assessed in the self-defense self-efficacy domain are consistent with the techniques taught in RAD. Cronbach’s alpha revealed good internal consistency for the three domains, with reliability coefficients of .96 for activities self-efficacy, .88 for interpersonal self-efficacy, and .97 for self-defense self-efficacy (Ozer & Bandura, 1990). The current study found similar reliability coefficients at Time 1 and Time 2, respectively: α = .96 and .96 for activities self-efficacy,α = .94 and .94 for interpersonal self-efficacy, and α = .99 and .98 for self-defense self-efficacy.

Procedure

Students who agreed to participate in the study provided informed consent at the beginning of the online survey. To collect follow-up data, participants selected a four-digit identification code and had the option of providing their email address to receive the Time 2 survey following their completion of the RAD course. Because participants were not matched to the specific police department or university from which RAD was provided, participants were asked at the beginning of the survey to indicate the date of their final RAD course. Time 2 survey links were emailed to participants within approximately 1-7 days post-training. Although the majority of participants were reminded of their four-digit identification code in their Time 2 follow-up email, some participants provided the wrong identification code or provided a duplicate code, thus decreasing the number of surveys that could be linked. To partially resolve this issue, Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2) IP addresses were matched following the completion of data collection. A total of eight cases were corrected and linked using IP address. The final sample of linked T1 and T2 completers was 71.

Results

Change scores were computed and a one-sample t-test was conducted to determine whether all participants, regardless of sexual trauma history, experienced significant increases in self-efficacy compared with their T1, or pre-training, scores. As predicted in the first hypothesis, all participants reported significant increases in interpersonal self-efficacy, t(70) = 9.678, p < .001, activities self-efficacy, t(70) = 7.640, p < .001, and self-defense self-efficacy, t(69) = 15.789, p < .001, from pre- to post-training. See Table 1 for group means and standard deviations at pre- and post-training. There were no significant differences for completers (i.e., completed T1 and T2) and noncompleters (i.e., completed only T1) in T1 interpersonal self-efficacy, T1 activities self-efficacy, or T1 self-defense self-efficacy.

Table 1.

Group Means and Standard Deviations of Self-Efficacy Scores Pre- and Post-Training.

	Pre-training			Post-training
	Activities SE	Interpersonal SE	Self-defense SE	Activities SE	Interpersonal SE	Self-defense SE
Survivors	4.92 (2.40)	6.45 (2.00)	4.07 (2.65)	7.15 (2.45)	8.89 (1.32)	9.00 (1.18)
Nonsurvivors	4.80 (2.42)	7.37 (1.49)	5.98 (2.32)	6.61 (2.32)	8.81 (1.08)	8.56 (1.22)

Note. SE = self-efficacy. Survivors are defined as participants who report a lifetime history of any of the following: forced or coerced vaginal, oral, or anal penetration; touching of breasts, pubic area, or perpetrator’s pubic area; or any attempted sexual assault. Nonsurvivors are defined as participants who report no lifetime history of the aforementioned experiences. Numbers in parentheses represent standard deviations. Self-efficacy scale scores range from 0-10, with higher numbers indicating greater self-efficacy.

A path analysis was computed using the statistical program, SPSS Amos 21 (Arbuckle, 2012). The model was structured to differentiate participants with and without a history of sexual trauma in the three domains of self-efficacy at pre- (T1) and post- (T2) time points (see Figure 1):χ²(6) = 5.403 (p = .493), comparative fit index (CFI) = 1.000, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.000, and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 1.018.

Figure 1.

Self-efficacy as a function of sexual trauma history at pre- and post-training.

Pre-Training

It was hypothesized that survivors of sexual trauma would report significantly lower pre-training levels of all three domains of self-efficacy than nonsurvivors. Sexual trauma history was significantly predictive of pre-training levels of interpersonal self-efficacy, such that survivors of sexual trauma had significantly lower levels of interpersonal self-efficacy than nonsurvivors (β = −.255, p = .028). Although nonsignificant, self-defense self-efficacy was trending toward significance, with survivors of sexual trauma reporting somewhat lower levels of self-defense self-efficacy than nonsurvivors (β = −.198, p = .091). Activities self-efficacy was not significantly associated with sexual trauma history.

Post-Training

It was hypothesized that survivors of sexual trauma would report significantly higher levels of all three domains of self-efficacy at post-training compared with nonsurvivors. Of the three domains of self-efficacy, only self-defense self-efficacy significantly differentiated the groups at post-training. Specifically, survivors of sexual trauma reported significantly higher levels of self-defense self-efficacy following completion of the RAD self-defense program than women without a history of sexual trauma (β = .276, p = .009). A nonsignificant trend toward increased levels of interpersonal self-efficacy following the completion of the RAD self-defense program was reported by survivors of sexual trauma (β = .157, p = .146). Sexual trauma history did not significantly predict post-training levels of activities self-efficacy. In all cases, pre-training self-efficacy scores predicted post-training self-efficacy scores.

Discussion

The current study sought to determine the effect of lifetime sexual trauma history on self-efficacy changes following completion of a self-defense course. Consistent with previous research, all participants, regardless of sexual trauma history, experienced significant increases in activities, interpersonal, and self-defense self-efficacy compared with pre-training scores (Anderson, 1998; David et al., 2006; Lidsker, 1991; Orchowski et al., 2008; Ozer & Bandura, 1990). As predicted, survivors of sexual trauma reported significantly lower pre-training interpersonal self-efficacy scores than nonsurvivors of sexual trauma, indicating that survivors are less confident in their ability to respond to a variety of risky interpersonal situations. Although not significant, there was a trend toward lower pre-training self-defense self-efficacy scores among survivors compared with nonsurvivors, suggesting that survivors may feel somewhat less confident in their ability to defend against an attack than nonsurvivors, perhaps because they have been victimized in the past.

Interestingly, no differences emerged in pre-training activities self-efficacy scores among the groups. Survivors of sexual trauma are often plagued by symptoms of PTSD (Kessler, Sonnega, Bromet, Hughes, & Nelson, 1995), including symptoms of hyperarousal, hypervigilance, and avoidance (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). These symptoms often lead to behavioral avoidance, in which survivors avoid certain stimuli because they become linked to traumatic memories or sensations (for a review, see Resnick, Kilpatrick, & Lipovsky, 1991). Because of this, survivors may be more likely than nonsurvivors to avoid certain activities in which their sense of personal safety feels compromised, such as using public transportation or running in a park alone. Although these symptoms of avoidance may differentiate survivors from nonsurvivors in the general population, it is likely that individuals seeking self-defense training may also be plagued by anxiety and fear in these situations, regardless of victimization history. In fact, a study that examined the reasons women enrolled in self-defense training found that many women reported signing up for self-defense training due to the fear or threat of sexual violence, including 21% of the sample (n = 25) doing so because they heard about other women being attacked (Hollander, 2010). Women who seek self-defense training clearly are already aware, at least in part, of the risks and dangers of being a potential victim, and as such, they may also experience some of the behavioral avoidance that is characteristic of survivors of sexual trauma.

History of sexual trauma was only partially predictive of reported levels of post-training self-efficacy as a result of the RAD training. Specifically, as hypothesized, survivors of sexual trauma reported significantly higher levels of self-defense self-efficacy at the post-training follow-up than women who were not survivors of sexual trauma. This suggests that self-defense training not only leads to improved self-defense self-efficacy for all participants, as expected given the nature of the training, but that these improvements may be more salient for survivors of sexual trauma—even when controlling for pre-training scores, which were somewhat lower for survivors than nonsurvivors. It might be that self-defense training taps into the need for survivors of sexual trauma to regain control over their bodies and lives. Survivors of sexual trauma who perceive that they have higher levels of control over their lives experience lower rates of PTSD and depression, whereas the opposite is true for survivors who perceive lower levels of control (Regehr, Cadell, & Jansen, 1999). It is possible that formal self-defense training allows survivors to regain a sense of control and thus makes them feel even more confident in their physical abilities. Future research might examine whether control mediates this relationship between sexual trauma history and self-defense self-efficacy to answer this question. In all cases, pre-training levels of self-efficacy predicted post-training levels of self-efficacy.

Although not significant, history of sexual trauma was trending toward being a significant predictor of post-training interpersonal self-efficacy scores. It was hypothesized that participants who reported a history of sexual trauma would report significantly higher levels of post-training interpersonal self-efficacy due to their increased skill level to defend themselves and their increased awareness about risks. Unfortunately, due to rates of attrition, the sample size in the current study was lower than expected. It is possible that a larger sample size would have led to a significant relationship between history of sexual trauma and post-training interpersonal self-efficacy scores. Similar to pre-training levels, post-training activities self-efficacy was not significantly predicted by history of sexual trauma, likely due to the reasons outlined regarding the pre-training finding. It is important to remember, however, that RAD participants reported significant increases in all three domains of self-efficacy at post-training; these increases were simply not always differentiated by sexual trauma group status.

Limitations to the current study should be noted. First, the study is dependent upon a self-selected population of participants, thus limiting its generalizability to survivors and nonsurvivors who would not seek self-defense training. Self-defense classes may draw women who have better than average coping skills and self-efficacy while excluding female survivors and nonsurvivors who have below average coping skills and self-efficacy. Future studies can address this limitation by including an additional control group of participants who did not seek self-defense training. Although the study utilized a national sample with a diverse age range, the sample consisted of mostly Caucasian participants, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other races and ethnicities. In addition, information on sexual orientation and sexual identity was not collected which limits the ability to generalize findings to nonheterosexual or gender-normative individuals. This limitation is particularly notable given the prevalence rates of sexual violence among these populations (Walters, Chen, & Breiding, 2013). Moreover, although the current study was strengthened by the inclusion of survivors of childhood sexual trauma, potential differences in self-efficacy between survivors of childhood and adult sexual trauma cannot be parsed out because of limitations to the NVAWS. Findings trending toward significance may be a reflection of these differences.

In addition, although 233 women completed the pre-training survey, data from only 71 participants could be used in the analyses due to attrition and participant identification errors that led to data from 11 participants being removed from analysis because the pre- and post-training data could not be matched. It is suggested that future research better address these concerns by using automatically generated identification numbers and by providing greater incentive to participate, such as a reward for each participant rather than the opportunity to enter a drawing. Unlike studies that utilize undergraduate populations or online services, students of self-defense programs do not generally seek the opportunity to participate in research on their own, and, as such, recruitment is more challenging. Furthermore, of those who were recruited to participate in the pre-training survey, many discontinued midway through the survey, suggesting that either the time it took to complete the survey was too long, they were simply not as committed to participating, or that the content of the survey was upsetting in some way. A final limitation to note is that participants did not provide their geographic location nor did they indicate the specific RAD course they attended. It is possible that individual instructors or courses were more or less effective than others, which could have impacted the results of the current study. This confounding variable should be considered in future studies utilizing a national sample of self-defense participants. Despite the potential for variability between RAD instructors, however, RAD is a relatively structured program and instructors are certified and guided by the RAD manual to ensure that the main components of RAD are transmitted in a standardized fashion.

Despite these limitations, the current study offers a greater understanding of how self-defense training may uniquely benefit survivors of sexual trauma, specifically, the ways in which domains of self-efficacy may or may not be uniquely improved by self-defense training resulting from prior history of sexual trauma. Previous research has established the benefits of self-defense training for survivors of sexual trauma compared with control groups (Brecklin, 2008; Brecklin & Ullman, 2005; Brody, 2008; Cox, 1999; Gidycz et al., 2006) or baseline scores (Anderson, 1998; Brecklin & Ullman, 2004; David et al., 2006; Lidsker, 1991; S. O. Michener, 1996; Ozer & Bandura, 1990; Schuiteman, 1990), but, until now, has neglected to examine how sexual trauma history may uniquely impact the positive benefits of self-defense training. This is particularly important to understand given the increased likelihood of revictimization for women who have histories of sexual trauma (Kilpatrick, 2000). Although the responsibility to avoid rape should be directed exclusively at those who rape and further research and training should continue to focus on limiting the prevalence of sexual trauma, participation in self-defense training may increase women’s confidence in their ability to defend against an attack and help make women feel safer in a world in which sexual trauma is unfortunately all too common.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contributions of Lisa S. Doane, PhD, of Cleveland State University, as well as Kathy Wright of the RAD Executive Board, who assisted in the recruitment process. Finally, the authors acknowledge the RAD instructors, without whom data collection would not have been possible.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Caitlin M. Pinciotti, MA, is currently a doctoral candidate in the clinical psychology program at Northern Illinois University. Her research focuses on sexual assault victimization, including factors that facilitate or inhibit healing, such as the availability of social support, disclosure experiences, world beliefs, and interventions such as self-defense.

Holly K. Orcutt, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Psychology at Northern Illinois University. Her research focuses on the broader framework of traumatic stress, including the prevention of trauma exposure, and risk and prevention factors such as emotion regulation, acceptance, and avoidance. Recently, she has conducted research using psychophysiological techniques to measure fear potentiated startle in female survivors of trauma.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Anderson

K. M.

(1998). Healing the fighting spirit: Combining self-defense training and group therapy for women who have experienced incest (Doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Arbuckle

J. L.

(2012). IBM SPSS AMOS 21 user’s guide. Armonk, NY: IBM Corporation.

Atkeson

B. M.

Calhoun

K. S.

Morris

K. T.

(1989). Victim resistance to rape: The relationship of previous victimization, demographics, and situational factors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 18, 497-507. doi:10.1007/BF01541675

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

Bandura

(1990). Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of control over AIDS infection. Evaluation and Program Planning, 13, 9-17. doi:10.1016/0149-7189(90)90004-G

Bandura

Adams

N. E.

Hardy

A. B.

Howells

G. N.

(1980). Tests of the generality of self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4, 39-66. doi:10.1007/BF01173354

Bart

P. B.

O’Brien

P. H

. (1984). Stopping rape: Effective avoidance strategies. Signs, 10, 83-101. doi: 10.1086/494115

10.

Bart

P. B.

O’Brien

P. H.

(1985). Stopping rape: Successful survival strategies. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

11.

Benight

C. C.

Bandura

(2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: The role of perceived self-efficacy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1129-1148. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2003.08.008

12.

Brecklin

L. R.

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

13.

Brecklin

L. R.

(2011). The benefits of self-defense training for sexual assault survivors. In Bryant-Davis

(Ed.), Surviving sexual assault: A guide to recovery and empowerment (pp. 276-295). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

14.

Brecklin

L. R.

Middendorf

R. K.

(2014). The group dynamics of women’s self-defense training. Violence Against Women, 20, 326-342. doi:10.1177/1077801214526044

15.

Brecklin

L. R.

Ullman

S. E.

(2004). Correlates of post-assault 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

16.

Brecklin

L. R.

Ullman

S. E.

(2005). Self-defense/assertiveness training and women’s responses to sexual attacks. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 738-762. doi:10.1177/0886260504272894

17.

Brody

R. D.

(2008). The effect of the R. A. D. self-defense program on adolescent girls’ self-esteem and self-concept (Doctoral dissertation). Northcentral University, Scottsdale, AZ.

18.

Clay-Warner

(2002). Avoiding rape: The effect of protective actions and situational factors on rape outcome. Violence and Victims, 17, 691-705. doi:10.1891/vivi.17.6.691.33723

19.

Cohen

P. B.

(1984). Resistance during sexual assaults: Avoiding rape and injury. Victimology, 9, 120-129.

20.

Cox

D. S.

(1999). An analysis of two forms of self-defense training and their impact on women’s sense of personal safety self-efficacy (Doctoral dissertation). Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.

21.

David

W. S.

Simpson

T. L.

Cotton

A. J.

(2006). Taking charge: A pilot curriculum of self defense and personal safety training for female veterans with PTSD because of military sexual trauma. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 555-565. doi:10.1177/0886260505285723

22.

Frost

H. L.

(1991). “Model Mugging”: A way to reduce women’s victimization (Doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Lawrence.

23.

Gidycz

C. A.

Dardis

C. M.

(2014). Feminist self-defense and resistance training for college students: A critical review and recommendations for the future. Trauma Violence Abuse, 15, 322-333. doi:10.1177/1524838014521026

24.

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

25.

Gidycz

C. A.

Van Wynsberghe

Edwards

K. M.

(2008). Prediction of women’s utilization of resistance strategies in a sexual assault situation: A prospective study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 571-588. doi:10.1177/0886260507313531

26.

Guerette

R. T.

Santana

S. A.

(2010). Explaining victim self-protective behavior effects on crime incident outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 56, 198-226. doi:10.1177/0011128707311644

27.

Halligan

S. L.

Michael

Clark

D. M.

Ehlers

(2003). Posttraumatic stress disorder following assault: The role of cognitive processing, trauma memory, and appraisals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 419-431. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.71.3.419

28.

Hollander

J. A.

(2010). Why do women take self-defense classes? Violence Against Women, 16, 459-478. doi:10.1177/1077801210364029

29.

Hollander

J. A.

(2014). Does self-defense training prevent sexual violence against women? Violence Against Women, 20, 252-269. doi:10.1177/1077801214526046

30.

Kessler

R. C.

Sonnega

Bromet

Hughes

Nelson

C. B.

(1995). Posttraumatic stress disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 1048-1060. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1995.03950240066012

31.

Kidder

L. H.

Boell

J. L.

Moyer

M. M.

(1983). Rights consciousness and victimization prevention: Personal defense and assertiveness training. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 155-170. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1983.tb00146.x

32.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

(2000). Rape and sexual assault. National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center, Charleston, SC: Medical University of South Carolina.

33.

Kleck

Sayles

(1990). Rape and resistance. Social Problems, 37, 149-162. doi:10.2307/800645

34.

Levine-MacCombie

Koss

M. P.

(1986). Acquaintance rape: Effective avoidance strategies. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 311-320. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1986.tb00756.x

35.

Lidsker

(1991). Women and self-defense training: A study of psychological changes experienced by participants in relation to assault history (Doctoral dissertation). Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, Palo Alto, CA.

36.

Michener

S. O.

(1996). An analysis of rape aggression defense as a method of self-empowerment for women (Doctoral dissertation). Walden University, Minneapolis, MN.

37.

Michener

T. D.

(1997). An analysis of the effectiveness of Rape Aggression Defense presented with and without simulated assaults (Doctoral dissertation). Walden University, Minneapolis, MN.

38.

Nadeau

L. N.

(Ed.). (2006). The R.A.D. Systems of self-defense: Basic physical defense for women participant manual. Denham Springs, LA: Rape Aggression Defense Systems.

39.

Norris

Nurius

P. S.

Dimeff

L. A.

(1996). Through her eyes: Factors affecting women’s perception of and resistance to acquaintance sexual aggression threat. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 123-145. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00668.x

40.

Nurius

P. S.

Norris

(1996). A cognitive ecological model of women’s response to male sexual coercion in dating. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 117-139. doi:10.1300/J056v08n01_09

41.

Nurius

P. S.

Norris

Dimeff

L. A.

Graham

T. L.

(1996). Expectations regarding acquaintance sexual aggression among sorority and fraternity members. Sex Roles, 35, 427-444.

42.

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

43.

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

44.

Peri

(1991, March). Below the belt. Women in the Martial Arts, Newsletter of the National Women’s Martial Arts Federation, 6-14.

45.

Quinsey

V. L.

Upfold

(1985). Rape completion and victim injury as a function of female resistance strategy. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 17, 40-50. doi:10.1037/h0080128

46.

R.A.D. FAQ’s . (n.d.). R.A.D. Systems of Self-Defense. Retrieved from http://www.rad-systems.com/about_faq.html

47.

Regehr

Cadell

Jansen

(1999). Perceptions of control and long-term recovery from rape. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69, 110-115. doi:10.1037/h0080386

48.

Resnick

H. S.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Lipovsky

J. A.

(1991). Assessment of rape-related posttraumatic stress disorder: Stressor and symptom dimensions. Psychological Assessment, 3, 561-572. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.3.4.561

49.

Rowe

N. P.

(1993). Self-defense training: An empowerment process for women (Doctoral dissertation). California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco.

50.

Ruback

R. B.

Ivie

D. L.

(1988). Prior relationship, resistance, and injury in rapes: An analysis of crisis center records. Violence and Victims, 3, 99-111.

51.

Schuiteman

J. A.

(1990). Self-defense training and its contributions to the healing process for survivors or sexual assault (Doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing.

52.

Schunk

D. H.

(1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 173-208. doi:10.1007/BF01320134

53.

Schunk

D. H.

(1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In Maddux

J. E.

(Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment (pp. 281-303). New York, NY: Springer.

54.

Senn

C. Y.

Eliasziw

Barata

P. C.

Thurston

W. E.

Newby-Clark

I. R.

Radtke

H. L.

Jobden

K. L.

(2015). Efficacy of a sexual assault resistance program for university women. New England Journal of Medicine, 372, 2326-2335. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1411131

55.

Shim

D. J.

(1998). Self-defense training, physical self-efficacy, body image, and avoidant behavior in women (Doctoral dissertation). Boston University, MA.

56.

Siegel

J. M.

Sorenson

S. B.

Golding

J. M.

Burnam

M. A.

Stein

J. A.

(1989). Resistance to sexual assault: Who resists and what happens? American Journal of Public Health, 79, 27-31. doi:10.2105/AJPH.79.1.27

57.

Smith

D. R.

(1983). A program evaluation: The effects of women’s self-defense training upon efficacy expectancies, behaviors, and personality variables (Doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing.

58.

Stajkovic

A. D.

Luthans

(1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240-261. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240

59.

Stoner

S. A.

Norris

George

W. H.

Davis

K. C.

Masters

N. T.

Hessler

D. M.

(2007). Effects of alcohol intoxication and victimization history on women’s sexual assault resistance intentions: The role of secondary cognitive appraisals. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 344-356. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00384.x

60.

Tark

Kleck

(2014). Resisting rape: The effects of victim self-protection on rape completion and injury. Violence Against Women, 20, 270-292. doi:10.1177/1077801214526050

61.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(1998, April). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (Research in brief, NCJ169592). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice,.

62.

Ullman

S. E.

(1990). A social psychological analysis of women’s resistance strategies to rape (Doctoral dissertation). Department of Psychology, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.

63.

Ullman

S. E.

(2007). A 10-year update of “review and critique of empirical studies of rape avoidance.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 411-429. doi:10.1177/0093854806297117

64.

Ullman

S. E.

Knight

R. A.

(1991). A multivariate model for predicting rape and physical injury outcomes during sexual assaults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 724-731. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.59.5.724

65.

Ullman

S. E.

Knight

R. A.

(1992). Fighting back: Women’s resistance to rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 31-43. doi:10.1177/088626092007001003

66.

Ullman

S. E.

Knight

R. A.

(1993). The efficacy of women’s resistance strategies in rape situations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 23-38. doi:10.1111/j.14716402.1993.tb00674.x

67.

Vanzile-Tamsen

Testa

Livingston

J. A.

(2005). The impact of sexual assault history and relationship context on appraisal of and responses to acquaintance sexual assault risk. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 813-832. doi:10.1177/0886260505276071

68.

Walters

M. L.

Chen

Breiding

M. J.

(2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

69.

Weitlauf

J. C.

Smith

R. E.

Cervone

(2000). Generalization effects of coping-skills training: Influence of self-defense training on women’s efficacy beliefs, assertiveness, and aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 625-633. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.625

70.

Zoucha-Jensen

J. M.

Coyne

(1993). The effects of resistance strategies on rape. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 1633-1634. doi:10.2105/AJPH.83.11.1