Profile Updated:
Summary: This is a rape prevention program for female college students, designed to teach about the prevalence of sexual assault, distinguish between rape myths and facts, identify risky situations, and teach techniques to use in a risky situation. The program is rated Promising for increasing assertive sexual communication, self-protective dating behaviors, and self-efficacy. (Review the full program description).
| Title | Rating | Details | Outcome Category | Study(ies) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assertive sexual communication |
Promising | More than One Study |
Overall, women in the treatment group who participated in the program experienced increased levels of assertive sexual communication, compared with women in the control group, based on multiple measures from two studies. This difference was statistically significant. |
Victimization; Self-protective behaviors; N/A | Orchowski, Lindsay M., Christine A. Gidycz, and Holly 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(2):204–218. See evaluation methods.Gidycz, Christine A., Lindsay M. Orchowski, Danielle R. Probst, Katie M. Edwards, Megan Murphy, and Erin Tansill. 2015. "Concurrent Administration of Sexual Assault Prevention and Risk Reduction Programming: Outcomes for Women." Violence Against Women 21(6):780–800. See evaluation methods. |
| Self-protective dating behaviors |
Promising | More than One Study |
Overall, women in the treatment group experienced increased levels of self-protective dating behaviors, compared with women in the control group, based on multiple measures from two studies. This difference was statistically significant. |
Victimization; Self-protective behaviors; Self-defense/resistance/target hardening | Orchowski, Lindsay M., Christine A. Gidycz, and Holly 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(2):204–218. See evaluation methods.Gidycz, Christine A., Lindsay M. Orchowski, Danielle R. Probst, Katie M. Edwards, Megan Murphy, and Erin Tansill. 2015. "Concurrent Administration of Sexual Assault Prevention and Risk Reduction Programming: Outcomes for Women." Violence Against Women 21(6):780–800. See evaluation methods. |
| Self-efficacy |
Promising | More than One Study |
Overall, women in the treatment group experienced increased levels of self-efficacy in responding to risky dating situations, compared with women in the control group, based on multiple measures from two studies. This difference was statistically significant. |
Victimization; Self-concept/self-esteem; N/A | Orchowski, Lindsay M., Christine A. Gidycz, and Holly 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(2):204–218. See evaluation methods.Gidycz, Christine A., Lindsay M. Orchowski, Danielle R. Probst, Katie M. Edwards, Megan Murphy, and Erin Tansill. 2015. "Concurrent Administration of Sexual Assault Prevention and Risk Reduction Programming: Outcomes for Women." Violence Against Women 21(6):780–800. See evaluation methods. |
Program Goals
The Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program is a rape prevention program for college students. The program is a modified version of the existing Ohio University Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program (Gidycz et al. 2006). The program contains all the components of the original program, but also includes increased discussion on intentions to engage in risk- reduction behavior (i.e., addressing a woman’s ability to foresee risk and engage in risk reduction behaviors) and increased discussion on psychological barriers to resistance that make it difficult for women to implement risk reduction strategies. The program is designed to teach about the prevalence of sexual assault, distinguish between myths and facts about rape and rapists, describe techniques women can use to increase personal safety; and identify agencies that can assist victims of sexual assault. The goals of the risk reduction program are to 1) reduce incidence of sexual assault among program participants, 2) increase women’s assertiveness in sexual situations, 3) increase women’s confidence in responding to potential attackers, 4) increase women’s use of self-protective strategies, 5) decrease self-blame among women who experience sexual victimization, and 6) increase women’s use of self-defense tactics.
Program Components
The seven-hour risk reduction program consists of three components: 1) an initial interactive course, 2) a feminist self-defense workshop, and 3) a booster-session review of program material. The program is administered amongst groups of 15–22 women and is broken up into two different sessions. A female graduate student researcher is responsible for facilitating program groups.
Session I is nearly three hours and consists of a PowerPoint presentation followed by a discussion on definitions and statistics related to the incidence of sexual victimization on college campuses and the local university, risk factors for sexual victimization, societal factors that foster violence, strategies women can use to reduce their risk of being victimized, and the need to reduce women’s self-blame. Participants watch two videos entitled “I thought it could never happen to me” and “Keep your eyes open: Alternative solutions for stressful social situations.” Additionally, there are small- and large-group discussions.
Session II includes a two-hour feminist self-defense course, which addresses a range of verbal and physical responses to threatening dating situations. Participants attend the course within two weeks of attending the first session. Assertive verbal responses and physical defense tactics are modeled by a female self-defense instructor and then practiced by program participants. Finally, two to four months after program completion, participants attend a two-hour booster session to review strategies taught during the program.
Program Theory
The Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program is grounded in social learning theory, as it strives to increase women ability to identify risky dating situations (Gidycz et al. 2006). Social learning theory is the belief that behavior is learned from the environment through observational learning. The theory holds that individuals actively think about the relationship between their behavior and the consequences that result. Therefore, through aiming to prevent risky behavior by teaching the consequences of this behavior and teaching self-protective strategies to replace this behavior, women are more likely to identify risky dating situations (Bandura, 1977; McLeod 2011). The program is also theoretically grounded in other models of attitude and behavior change, including the health-belief model (Hochman 1958), the elaboration-likelihood model (Petty and Cacioppo 1986), and the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991). The health-belief model suggests that individuals’ health-related actions are associated with the perceived susceptibility and severity of health consequences, and the perceived benefits and barriers of engaging in protective behavior. According to the elaboration-likelihood model, long-term and stable attitude and behavior change is associated with central-route processing, which occurs when individuals attend to personally relevant messages rather than general, less salient information. The theory of planned behavior suggests that making a plan to respond assertively and taking a protective stance when in social situations constitute a specific strategy that women can employ to reduce their risk of harm. The program is guided by Rozee and Koss’s (2001) Assess, Acknowledge, and Act (AAA) model of sexual-assault risk reduction, which encourages women to appraise, acknowledge, and assertively respond to coercive and potentially threatening dating situations.
Study Title: “Evaluation of a Sexual Assault Risk Reduction and Self-Defense Program: A Prospective Analysis of a Revised Protocol.” (which is associated with outcomes Assertive sexual communication , Self-protective dating behaviors , and Self-efficacy )
Research Design
Orchowski and Colleagues (2008) conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate a modified version of the Ohio University Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program (with a self-defense component), also known as the Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program, at a medium-sized midwestern university. Participants included 300 undergraduate women enrolled in psychology courses. The study was advertised as a study of educational programming for women. Participants volunteered for the study using an online sign-up system. All program sessions were conducted in classrooms in the Department of Psychology.
Sample
College women were randomly assigned to either the treatment group (n = 157) or the placebo-control group (n = 143). The treatment group received a sexual assault risk reduction program that consisted of an interactive course, a feminist self-defense course, and a booster-session review of program material. The content of the placebo-control group intervention focused on vaccine-preventable diseases and was designed not to overlap with the content of the treatment group intervention. The placebo-control group intervention was the same length as the risk reduction program and also incorporated video segments, a presentation, facilitated discussions, and a booster-session review of program material.
The majority of women were first- or second-year college students (95 percent), 18 or 19 years old (91 percent), and identified as nonmarried (100 percent) and heterosexual (98 percent). Ninety-six percent identified as Caucasian, 3 percent as African American, 0.3 percent as Asian American, and 0.7 percent as other race/ethnicity. Eight percent reported previous participation in a sexual assault risk reduction program and 13 percent reported previous participation in a self-defense program. Experiences of adolescent sexual victimization (i.e., unwanted sexual experiences from age 14 to the pretest assessment) were reported by 39 percent of the participants. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment and control group participants in age, ethnicity, academic rank, and family income; past participation in a sexual assault risk reduction program or self-defense course; and history of sexual victimization. There were baseline differences on program outcome measures. Program participants reported statistically significantly higher levels of self-protective dating behaviors compared with control group participants at the baseline assessment.
Data Collection/Outcome Measures
The outcomes scored for the CrimeSolutions review of this study were assertive sexual communication, self-protective dating behaviors, and self-efficacy (in responding to risky dating situations). Assertive sexual communication was assessed using the Sexual Communication Survey. Participants reported the frequency with which they engage in open sexual communication with their partner regarding a range of topics, such as sexual likes and dislikes (e.g., “Do you ever end up allowing a guy that you go out with to kiss you when you don’t really want to, not because you feel forced or coerced, but because of some other concern [such as wanting him to like you or being too embarrassed to talk about it]?”). Responses were provided on a seven-point scale, ranging from never to always. Self-protective dating behavior was assessed using the Dating Self-Protection Against Rape Scale. Participants reported the frequency with which they engage in a series of 15 behaviors used to protect themselves from sexual victimization (e.g., “How often do you pay attention to your dating partner’s drug/alcohol intake?”). Responses were provided on a six-point scale, ranging from never to always. Confidence in performing an array of assertive responses in threatening dating situations was assessed by seven items on the Self-Efficacy Scale (e.g., “If a man you were with was attempting to get you to have sex with him and you were not interested, how confident are you that you could successfully resist his advances?”). Responses were provided on a seven-point scale, ranging from not at all confident to very confident. Data were collected at pretest, at the two-month follow-up, and at the four-month follow-up over the course of one academic year (the CrimeSolutions Review of this study focused on four-month follow-up measures).
Statistical Analysis
For each outcome measure, the authors reported means and standard deviations for both the treatment group and the placebo-control group. The study did not conduct subgroup analyses.
Citation:
Orchowski, Lindsay M., Christine A. Gidycz, and Holly 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(2):204–218.
Study Title: "Concurrent Administration of Sexual Assault Prevention and Risk Reduction Programming: Outcomes for Women." (which is associated with outcomes Assertive sexual communication , Self-protective dating behaviors , and Self-efficacy )
Research Design
Gidycz and Colleagues (2015) conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate a modified version of the Ohio University Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program (with a self-defense component), also known as the Sexual Assault Risk Reduction program, at a medium-sized midwestern university, where students were required to live on campus during their first year. The program was tailored to women and participation was voluntary. The intervention was implemented concurrently with a sexual assault prevention program for men within a residence-hall setting. The content and results of the sexual assault prevention program for men are described in a companion paper (Gidycz et al. 2011).
Sample
First-year residence halls were randomly assigned to the treatment or control group. A total of 650 women living in campus residence halls for first-year students volunteered to take part in the study. However, women in both conditions dropped out of the study between baseline and the 4-month (n = 555) and 7-month (n = 535) follow-up. Women living in residence halls assigned to the treatment group (n = 207) received a sexual assault risk reduction program, which included an initial interactive course, a feminist self-defense workshop, and a booster-session review of program material. Intervention components were manualized and administered in the residence hall. Women in control-group (n = 297) residence halls only completed questionnaires and were offered the opportunity to complete the sexual assault risk reduction program following the completion of the study.
The majority of women were 18 or 19 years old (98 percent), unmarried (99 percent), and reported that they were heterosexual (98 percent). Nearly 91 percent of women identified as Caucasian (n = 597), 4 percent as African American, 2 percent as Hispanic or Latino, 1 percent as Asian, 0.8 percent as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 0.5 percent as American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1 percent as other race/ethnicity. Descriptive characteristics (i.e., age, race, ethnicity, family income, and history of sexual victimization) and outcome measures did not differ between groups at baseline.
Data Collection/Outcome Measures
The outcomes scored for the CrimeSolutions review of this study were assertive sexual communication, self-protective dating behavior, and self-efficacy (in responding to risky dating situations). Assertiveness in sexual situations was assessed with the Sexual Assertiveness Questionnaire for Women. Participants responded to 30 items on a five-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The measure included the Relational Sexual Assertiveness (RSA) subscale. Use of protective behaviors to decrease risk for sexual victimization was assessed by the Dating Self-Protection Against Rape Scale. Participants responded to 15 items on a six-point scale, ranging from never to always. Women’s confidence in performing an array of assertive responses in threatening dating situations was assessed with the Self-Efficacy Scale. Participants responded to seven items on a seven-point scale, ranging from not at all confident to very confident. Data were collected at pretest, the four-month follow-up, and the seven-month follow-up over the course of two academic years (the CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on seven-month follow-up measures).
Statistical Analysis
For each outcome measure, the authors reported means and standard deviations for both the treatment group and the control group. The study did not conduct subgroup analyses.
Citation:
Gidycz, Christine A., Lindsay M. Orchowski, Danielle R. Probst, Katie M. Edwards, Megan Murphy, and Erin Tansill. 2015. "Concurrent Administration of Sexual Assault Prevention and Risk Reduction Programming: Outcomes for Women." Violence Against Women 21(6):780–800.
The following outcomes were considered in the studies, but CrimeSolutions Study Reviewers determined the evidence was insufficient for a rating to be assigned:
- Sexual victimization
- Self-blame
These sources were used in the development of the program profile:
Ajzen, Icek. 1991. "The Theory of Planned Behavior." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2):179–211.
Auble, L., Goldberg, A., Kinor, S., Reese, E., and Raffle, Holly. 2004. “A Peer-Based Vaccine Preventable Disease Education and Awareness Program.” Unpublished program protocol.
Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social Learning Theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.
Gidycz, Christine A., Cindy L. Rich, Lindsay Orchowski, Carrie King, and Audrey K. Miller. 2006. “The Evaluation of a Sexual Assault Self-Defense and Risk-Reduction Program for College Women: A Prospective Study.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 30(2):173–183. (This study was reviewed but did not meet CrimeSolutions criteria for inclusion in the program’s evidence base.)
Gidycz, Christine A., Lindsay M. Orchowski, and Katie M. Edwards. 2011. “Primary Prevention of Sexual Violence.” In Violence Against Women and Children, vol. 2, ed. Mary P. Koss, Jacquelyn W. White, and Alan E. Kazdin (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 159–179.
Hochman, Godfrey, M. 1958. Public Participation in Medical Screening Programs: A Socio-Psychological Study (PHS Publication No. 572). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Bureau of State Services, Division of Special State Services, Tuberculosis Program. Retrieved from http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6264119M/
McLeod, Saul. 2011. “Bandura – Social Learning Theory.” Simply Psychology. Webpage. http://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
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:
This practice encompasses programs that are designed to reduce the prevalence of sexual assaults by targeting potential perpetrators directly. Programs include components designed to build empathy for victims, break down myths about rape, and train bystanders to intervene in potential assaults. The practice is rated Effective for reducing future intent to be sexually aggressive and for increasing future prevention efforts but is rated Ineffective for reducing actual sexual assault perpetration.
Evidence Ratings for Outcomes
|
Attitudes & Beliefs - Future Intentions of Being Sexually Aggressive |
|
|
Victimization - Future Prevention Efforts |
|
Crime & Delinquency - Sex-related offenses |
This practice comprises programs designed to decrease the prevalence of sexual assault among adolescents and college students by educating would-be bystanders (i.e., witnesses) about sexual assault, and promoting the willingness to intervene in risky situations. The practice is rated Effective for reducing rape myth acceptance, increasing bystander efficacy, and increasing intent to help. It is rated Promising for increasing bystander helping behavior and decreasing rape supportive attitudes.
Evidence Ratings for Outcomes
|
Attitudes & Beliefs - Bystander Efficacy |
|
|
Attitudes & Beliefs - Intent to Help |
|
|
Attitudes & Beliefs - Rape Myth Acceptance |
|
Attitudes & Beliefs - Rape Supportive Attitudes |
|
|
Victimization - Actual Helping Behavior |
Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this program:
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.
This is an educational, skills-based workshop for first-year female college students. The program is designed to teach young women how to assess risk, overcome barriers in acknowledging danger, and engage in self-defense to reduce the risk of sexual assault. The program is rated Effective. The program showed a statistically significant reduction in the risk of completed and attempted rape, nonconsensual sexual acts, and attempted coercion. There was no impact on the risk of attempted coercion.
This is a sexual assault risk-reduction program that is designed to teach college women bystanders about sexual assault, characteristics of men who perpetrate the crime, and how to intervene. The program is rated Promising. Experimental group participants demonstrated statistically significant increases in their ability and willingness to intervene, compared with control group participants. However, there was no statistically significant impact on rape myth acceptance.
This program was originally rated Ineffective. It has been re-reviewed based on the change in the program rating instrument. Under the new instrument, CrimeSolutions ow now rates individual program outcomes and no longer assigns an overall rating.
Rating Process
Program Status
This program is Active.