Program Profile: Web-Based Sexual Assault Risk Reduction (SARR) for College Women

This was a program for college women who engaged in heavy episodic drinking to provide feedback on their risk perception and resistance to reduce sexual assault. The program is rated Ineffective. Program participants did not statistically significantly differ from those in the control group on measures of incapacitated attempted/completed rape frequency, alcohol-related sexual assault incidents/severity, or use of sexual assault protective behavioral strategies at the 3-month follow-up.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals/Target Population

Alcohol use and sexual assault (which includes nonconsensual sexual contact ranging from sexual touching to penetration) are common experiences for college women. About 20 percent of women experience sexual assault while in college (Krebs et al. 2007), and about 40 percent of college students engage in heavy episodic drinking (HED), which for women is consuming four drinks or more over a 2-hour period (Mitka 2009; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 2004).

Acknowledging this cooccurrence, a sexual assault risk reduction (SARR) intervention was created to address the sexual assault risk perception, resistance strategies, and barriers to resistance in college women ages 18 to 20 with a history of HED. The goal of this web-based SARR program was to empower women by providing personalized feedback on their sexual assault risk perception and resistance strategies, to ultimately reduce incidence of sexual assault on college campuses.

Program Components/Key Personnel

This SARR program was delivered in a web-based format. The first component of the intervention was sexual assault education, which included campus- and state-specific definitions of sexual assault and risk factors for sexual assault. (For example, information was provided on high-risk locations and research on potential perpetrator characteristics.) This component also included personalized feedback on the estimated likelihood of being sexually assaulted while in college directly compared with actual sexual assault rates at the participants’ university, presented in a graph form.

The second component focused on sexual assault risk reduction strategies and skills: a sexual assault scenario was presented, and participants chose what resistance strategy they would be most likely to use in the situation. Participants were given personalized feedback on that strategy and a list of active resistance strategies that could be used. An example of feedback was: "In the survey you indicated that you would try: 'Tell him clearly and directly that I want him to stop,' this IS an active resistance strategy" (Gilmore, Lewis, and George 2015, 7). Participants also were provided with other active resistance strategies as examples. Further, they received feedback on particular parts of the story that indicated sexual assault risk to target and improve sexual assault risk perception.

Barriers to resist sexual assault were also addressed in the program. Individuals were given a list of common barriers to resistance (including having friends in common with the person who perpetrated the crime) and provided with potential ways to address these barriers. Participants were also given local information about sexual assault and counseling resources.

Program Theory

This SARR intervention program was developed based on the two most-prominent theories about sexual assault victimization: 1) the Cognitive Mediational Model (Nurius and Norris 1996) and 2) assess, acknowledge, and act (Rozee and Koss 2001). These theories suggest that sexual assault risk perception and resistance are important factors in sexual assault victimization and that, although the person is at fault for the assault, women can learn skills to increase their risk perception and use of effective resistance strategies. These theories put forth several steps that can be used in responding to a sexual assault, including the ability to perceive risk (sexual assault risk perception) and resistance strategies that can be used if barriers to resistance do not get in the way (such as social pressure or alcohol use). Therefore, following these theories, the SARR program focuses on risk perception, resistance strategies, and barriers to resistance (Gilmore, Lewis, and George 2015).

Study

Gilmore, Lewis, and George (2015) used a randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a web-based sexual assault risk reduction (SARR) intervention to reduce sexual assault and alcohol-related sexual assault outcomes in a sample of college women at the 3-month follow-up.

Participants were recruited from college-level introductory psychology courses and were eligible for the study if they were 1) female, 2) reported heavy episodic drinking (HED), or consumption of four drinks over a 2-hour period at least once in the past month, and 3) were from 18 to 20 years old. Participants completed the baseline screening survey online and were given course credit. At baseline, the full study sample were on average 18.8 years old. The majority of participants reported they were freshman (61.1 percent), were not members of a sorority (65.0 percent), lived on campus or in a sorority house (72.9 percent), and were not in a serious relationship (71.5 percent). Participants identified as 57.6 percent White, 20.5 percent Asian American/Pacific Islander, 14.1 percent multiracial, 9.5 percent Hispanic/Latina, 3.9 percent Black/African American, 2.9 percent other, and 1.0 percent Native American.

Individuals who began the follow-up survey (n = 207) were included in the analysis, whether or not they viewed their personalized feedback. Eligible participants were randomly assigned, stratified by sexual assault history, to either a minimal assessment (20 percent) or a full assessment (80 percent). Participants assigned to complete the full assessment were then randomly assigned, stratified by sexual assault history, to one of four conditions: 1) Alcohol Only Condition (n = 53 at randomization, n = 45 at the 3-month follow-up), 2) SARR Only Condition (n = 52 at randomization, n = 42 at the 3-month follow-up), 3) Combined Condition (n = 52 at randomization, n = 38 at follow-up), and 4) Full Assessment Only Control Condition (n = 54 at randomization, n = 40 at follow-up). There were no statistically significant differences between conditions on baseline characteristics. Those in the Alcohol Only, SARR Only, and Combined Condition received the web-based intervention immediately following the completion of the survey. All participants were contacted 3 months after completing the intervention to complete the follow-up survey. The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the SARR-only condition compared with the control condition (full assessment–only group).

Several measures of alcohol-related sexual assault, sexual assault, and alcohol use were employed to establish participant behavior and experiences, and for the condition randomization process. For alcohol-related sexual assault, items from the revised Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) assessed intoxicated attempted or completed rape at follow-up. Participants were asked to indicate how many times (0, 1, 2, or 3 or more) they had had attempted or completed penetrative sex by incapacitation in the past 3 months. Incapacitation refers to being unconscious, or passing out, because of alcohol; some men use this as a tactic for sexual assault (Gilmore et al. 2018). For risk perception of alcohol-involved rape, participants estimated (at baseline and at follow-up) the percentage likelihood that they would experience nonconsensual sex while being incapacitated by alcohol by a man that they knew while in college. Participants could enter numbers ranging from 0 to 100 to estimate percentage likelihood. Participants were also asked at baseline and follow-up how often they consumed alcohol before or during sexual activity, responding using a five-point scale (0 = never to 4 = always). This was an indicator of behavior in the past 3 months.

The SES was also used to assess participants’ experiences with sexual coercion at three time points: after their 14th birthday but before entering college (baseline), since entering college (baseline), and in the past 3 months (follow-up). Baseline experiences were combined. Participants indicated the number of times that a tactic or multiple tactics were used in sexual assault experiences including sexual contact, attempted penetration, and completed penetration (0 times, 1 time, 2 times, and 3 or more times). Sexual assault incidence and severity were scored using a 63-point scale (Davis et al. 2014) for each time point (baseline and follow-up), with high scores indicating more severe sexual assault experiences and zeros indicating no sexual assault experiences. Participants estimated the likelihood (in percentages) of experiencing verbally coerced nonconsensual sex by a man that they knew while in college at baseline and follow-up using an open-ended question.

Sexual assault protective behavioral strategies (PBS) were assessed using a revised version of the Dating Self-Protection Against Rape Scale. This consisted of 15 items for participants to indicate how often they engaged in behaviors (for example, “provide your own transportation” and “meet in a public place instead of a private place”) when they were with a date (and revised to include “or someone who is sexually interested in you”). Answer choices ranged on a five-point scale (1 = never to 5 = always). Scores were computed by creating an average of all items for baseline and follow-up.

Alcohol use was measured by drinks per week, HED frequency, drinking norms, and PBS. Participants indicated the number of drinks typically consumed each day of their average week in the past 30 days using the Daily Drinking Questionnaire at baseline. Average drinks per week were calculated by summing the drinks consumed each day. HED frequency was assessed by asking participants, “How often did you have four or more drinks containing any kind of alcohol within a 2-hour period” in the past month at baseline and in the past 3 months at follow-up. Answer choices ranged from zero times in the past month to every day. Participants were also asked 15 items from the Protective Behavioral Strategies measure, including while using alcohol or “partying” whether they engaged in certain behaviors (e.g. “determined not to exceed a set number of drinks,” “avoid mixing different types of alcohol,” and “know where your drink had been at all times”) with answer choices ranging on a five-point scale reverse scored (1 = never to 5 = always). Items were averaged for a total drinking PBS score at baseline and follow-up.

Hierarchical regressions were used to examine incapacitated attempted/completed rape frequency, alcohol-related sexual assault incidents and severity, and use of sexual assault protective behavioral strategies at the 3-month follow-up. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Bountress, Kaitlin E., Isha W. Metzger, Jessica L. Maples–Keller and Amanda K. Gilmore. 2017. “Reducing Sexual Risk Behaviors: Secondary Analyses From a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Brief Web-Based Alcohol Intervention for Underage, Heavy Episodic Drinking College Women.” Addiction Research and Theory 25(4):302–09.

Davis, Kelly Cue, Amanda K. Gilmore, Cynthia A. Stappenbeck, Michael J. Balsan, William H. George, and Jeanette Norris. 2014. “How to Score the Sexual Experiences Survey? A Comparison of Nine Methods.” Psychology of Violence 4(4):445–61.

Gilmore, Amanda K., and Kaitlin E. Bountress. 2016. “Reducing Drinking to Cope Among Heavy Episodic Drinking College Women: Secondary Outcomes of a Web-Based Combined Alcohol Use and Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Intervention.” Addictive Behaviors 61:104–11.

Gilmore, Amanda K., Kaitlin E. Bountress, Mollie Selmanoff, and William H. George. 2018. “Reducing Heavy Episodic Drinking, Incapacitation, and Alcohol-Induced Blackouts: Secondary Outcomes of a Web-Based Combined Alcohol Use and Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Intervention.” Violence Against Women 24(11):1299–1313.

Jaffe, Anna E., Kaitlin E. Bountress, Isha W. Metzger, Jessica L. Maples–Keller, Hanna T. Pinsky, William H. George, and Amanda K. Gilmore. “Student Engagement and Comfort During a Web-Based Personalized Feedback Intervention for Alcohol and Sexual Assault.” Addictive Behaviors 82:23–27.

Krebs, Christopher P., Christine H. Lindquist, Tara D. Warner, Bonnie S. Fisher, and Sandra L. Martin. 2007. “The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (DOJ 221153).

Mitka, Michael. 2009. “College Binge Drinking Still on the Rise.” Journal of the American Medical Association 302(8):836–37.

National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. 2004. “NIAAA Council Approves Definition of Binge Drinking.” NIAAA Newsletter 3:3.

Nurius, Paula S., and Jeanette Norris. 1996. “A Cognitive Ecological Model of Women’s Response to Male Sexual Coercion in Dating.” Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality 8(1-2):117–39.

Rozee, Patricia D., and Mary P. Koss. 2001. “Rape: A Century of Resistance.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 25(4):295–311.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Sexual Assault Education Programs on College Campuses

This practice comprises programs that are designed to reduce the prevalence of sexual assaults on college campuses by reducing the rape-supportive ideology for those who may potentially perpetrate a crime, while increasing potential victims’ knowledge and awareness of risky situations, and thereby their safety. The practice is rated Effective for reducing rape attitudes (such as acceptance of rape myths and victim blaming) and rape-related attitudes (such as sex-role stereotyping and adversarial

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Attitudes & Beliefs - Rape-related Attitudes
	Attitudes & Beliefs - Rape Attitudes

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?