University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A study of a university-based men-only prevention program (Men CARE): effect on attitudes and behaviors related to sexual violence

(USC Thesis Other)

A study of a university-based men-only prevention program (Men CARE): effect on attitudes and behaviors related to sexual violence

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
A STUDY OF A UNIVERSITY-BASED MEN-ONLY PREVENTION PROGRAM
(MEN CARE): EFFECT ON ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS RELATED TO
SEXUAL VIOLENCE

by

En-Hsien Liu

________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2010

Copyright 2010 En-Hsien Liu

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables iii
Abstract v
Chapter 1: The Problem and Underlying Framework 1
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 23
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 59
Chapter 4: Findings 73
Chapter 5: Discussion 94
References 109
Appendix A: List of Variable Names 125
Appendix B: Survey Instrument One: USC Men CARE Violence 127
Prevention Project

iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. List of the Groups 17
Table 2. List of the Groups 62
Table 3. Ethnicity 65
Table 4. Students’ Affiliations 65
Table 5. Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficients for the Two 68
Composite Scales
Table 6. Summary of the Statistical Analysis 72
Table 7. Ethnicity Table 76
Table 8. Ethnicity Distribution in each Group 76
Table 9. Summary of All Four Student Affiliations Distribution 79
Table 10. Chi-square Analysis Between Groups 1 and 2 and Each Student 80
Affiliation
Table 11. Chi-square Analysis Between Groups 1 and 3 and Each Student 81
Affiliation
Table 12. The T-test Results on Attitudes Scores for Groups 1 and 2 and 83
the Members of Other Registered Student Organizations
Table 13. The T-test Results for the SpeakUp Variable Among Student 85
Affiliations
Table 14. Summary of the T-test Results for the Attitude Variable 87
Table 15. Summary of the T-test Results for the Other Registered 88
Student Groups
Table 16. Summary of the T-test Results for the Behavior, SpeakUp 89
Variable

iv
Table 17. Summary of Cohort Differences on the SpeakUp Variable 90
Based on Student Affiliation
Table 18. Summary of Cohort Differences on the SpeakUp Variable, 91
White/Caucasian

v
ABSTRACT
This study assesses the correlations of participation in a prevention program,
Men Creating Attitudes for Rape-free Environments (Men CARE), and participants’
attitudes and behavior toward sexual violence. The t-tests were used to determine
the association, either by the intervention or the cohort, on attitudes and behaviors
between the groups, across student affiliation and ethnicity. After the primary
statistical analysis, it appeared that the workshop was having an influence on
participants’ attitudes about and behavior toward rape. The result demonstrates that
the workshop is helpful in decreasing rape myth acceptance, increasing knowledge
of sexual violence, increasing pro-social bystander attitudes, and increasing
bystander efficacy.

1
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK
Being a victim of sexual violence is one of the most demeaning experiences
that any individual can endure. The World Health Organization (WHO; 2002)
defines sexual violence as:
Any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or
advances, or acts to traffic a person’s sexuality, using coercion, threats of
harm or physical force by any person, regardless of the relationship to the
victim, in any setting, including but not limited to home and work. (p. 2)

Results of the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey
released in 2007 have estimated 272,350 reported sexual assaults against victims
over the age of 12 in the United States in 2006. Such violence often causes victims to
suffer immediate, severe, and potential long-term physical and mental health
consequences (Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher & Martin, 2007). Physical health
problems caused by sexual violence include unwanted pregnancy, gynecological
complications, and sexually transmitted diseases (Morrison, Hardison, Mathew &
O’Neil, 2004). Psychological consequences include “intense fear and emotional
numbing, loss of control, and the shattering of their trust and their belief in their
ability to make sound judgments about the people and the world around them”
(Karjane, Fisher & Cullen, 2002, p. vi). Moreover, women who have been sexually
assaulted are at an increased risk for suicide, thirteen times more so than are non-
victims and six times more than are victims of other types of crime (National Victim
Center and Crime Victim Research and Treatment Center, 1992).

2
In addition to the emotional toll, rape is the most costly crime to its victims in
the United States, totaling $127 billion a year for medical costs, lost earnings, pain,
suffering and loss of quality of life (Miller, Cohen & Wierama, 1996). Furthermore,
the statistics and reports show that domestic violence has been estimated to cost
employers in the U.S. up to $13 billion each year. The cost of intimate partner
violence annually exceeded $5.8 billion, including $4.1 billion in direct health care
expenses in 2003 (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2003). The
recent research stated that intimate partner violence costs a health plan $19.3 million
each year for every 100,000 women between the age of 18 and 64 enrolled (The
National Network to End Domestic Violence, no date). When the physical,
psychological, and economic costs are this high, it is imperative to find a way to
reduce or eliminate instances of sexual assault.
Background of the Problem
While sexual assault crimes are problematic to society in general, a great deal
of research suggests that sexually aggressive behavior is particularly prevalent on
college campuses (Banyard, Plante & Moynihan, 2005; Foubert & Newberry, 2006;
Hall, 1996; Koss, Gidycz & Wisniewski, 1987). Female college students who are
victims of sexual violence have received more attention since Koss, Digycz, and
Wisniewski’s (1987) pivotal findings that college women were 50% more likely
being the victims of sexual abuse or rape then the other age groups. Further attention
was paid to this finding based on Fisher’s (2000) noting that there was an increase in
incidents of sexual violence on college campuses. Warshaw (1988) explained that

3
such a high incidence of sexual violence is likely, given that “the college years
happen to coincide with the greatest period of risk for rape” (p. 190). Furthermore,
Fisher, Sloan, Cullen, and Lu (1998) noted that with the university environment
comes a prevalence of parties, alcohol, and lowered inhibitions among young adults
and, notably, situations in which men and women are thrown together.
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) (Rennison,
2002) the highest incidences of rape or sexual assault occur among 16- to 19-year-
old women (10.4 per 1,000) and 20- to 24- year old women (5.4 per 1,000).
Specifically, a report from the Department of Justice (as cited in Fisher, Cullen &
Turner, 2000) found that, in each academic year, for every 5,000 female college
students in the U.S., there are 146 sexual contacts with force or threat of force, 121
rapes by coercion, 97 rapes by force or threat of force, and 80 attempted rapes by
force or threat of force. In fact, Fisher et al. (2000) have projected that, over an
average of five years of undergraduate college life, the percentage of female college
students who have experienced rape or attempted rape is between 20% and 25%.
These percentages indicate serious social, public health, and criminal justice
issues, including the safety of campuses and prejudicial behaviors. Karjane et al.
(2002) reported that college and university campuses are not safe places that are free
of crime. In particular, sexually aggressive behavior is prevalent on college
campuses, which puts college female students at an elevated risk of becoming
victims of sexual violence in comparison to women in the general population or in a

4
comparable age group (Morrison, Hardison, Mathew, O’Neil, 2004; Feltey, Alinslie
& Geib, 2005; Fisher et al., 2000).
One study, Karjane et al. (2001, 2), indicated that research showed that
campuses have become “hot spots for criminal activity” (p. 1). As a result, concern
over the sexual assault of female college students has escalated in the past few years,
and there has been a burgeoning of rape prevention interventions on college
campuses (Fisher et al., 2000; Heppner, Neville, Smith, Kivlighan, & Gershuny,
1999). As such, creating effective strategies for preventing the perpetration of sexual
violence on college campuses, reducing victims’ risk of sexual assault, and better
meeting the needs of victims have emerged as critical and timely issues for colleges
to address. The following chapter contains the background and analysis of the
current effective strategies for prevention program efforts on college campuses. The
section below contains information on the background and history of college campus
prevention programs.
The evolution of rape deterrence programs has established a number of
models for preventing rape. In early prevention attempts to reduce campus violence,
universities focused on traditional methods of sexual assault prevention, such as
assertiveness and self-defense workshops or deterrence strategies designed for
women to reduce their risk of being sexually assaulted (Berkowitz, 2001; Lonsway,
1996; Warshaw, 1988). Most research suggested that women might be able to reduce
their risk of being attacked by being more proactive or aggressive (Barth, Derezotes,

5
Danforth, 1991; Mann, Hecht & Valentine, 1988; Muehlenhard, Julsonnet & Flarity-
White, 1989; Schewe, 2002).
In the 1980s and early 1990s, this method of rape prevention, which focused
on the ways that women could protect themselves, reduced women’s vulnerability by
increasing their awareness and teaching them self-defense (Gray, Lesser, Quinn &
Bounds, 1990; Hanson & Gidycz, 1993; Warshaw, 1988; Women Against Rape,
1980). By showing women how to protect themselves, these programs have had
some level of success, as based on the notion that men are less likely to choose a
woman as a victim if she is less vulnerable (Berkowitz, 2001; Lonsway, 1996).
Lonsway (1996), however, has argued that these defensive strategies are not really
prevention methods, but rather deterrents, as the rapist will then choose a more
vulnerable, less prepared woman and a rape will still transpire.
Moreover, the method of increasing women’s awareness and ability to defend
themselves ignores the important fact that males are most responsible for rape and
therefore should be involved in the prevention process (Berkowitz, 2001). The
studies of convicted rapists show that their attitudes about women, rather than the
traits of the victims, are more relevant to a man’s tendency to commit sexual assault
(Thompson, 1995). Hong (2000), whose peer and advocacy education program
promotes the confrontation of false beliefs that connect manliness with aggression,
also has commented that these “traditional programs” fail as viable prevention
methods because they do not involve the perpetrator and do not address the source of
the violence. Thus, deterrent methods help only to a certain extent, but are not able to

6
reduce the overall risk to women collectively (Lonsway, 1996). As Schewe and
O’Donohue (1993a) have stated,
No one can be constantly and perfectly vigilant. Thus, no matter how well
trained women become in avoidance, escape, and physical self-defense, they
will be vulnerable to sexual assault to the extent that there are men who will
commit acts of sexual assault (pp. 667-668).

Therefore, although it is valuable for women to know how to protect themselves,
such knowledge is a limited, one-sided form of prevention. In fact, one of the
harmful side effects of prevention strategies aimed at educating potential victims
alone may be the implication that female victims, rather than male perpetrators, are
responsible for preventing sexual aggression (Schewe & O’Donohue, 1993a). The
emphasis on preventive strategies for victims, even when appropriately implemented,
is limited: women still are often overpowered and unable to prevent sexual advances
by perpetrators during an attack. Furthermore, making women accountable for their
own safety diminishes the importance of the responsibility of potential perpetrators
in preventing sexual aggression. In this regard, Feltey, Ainslie, and Geib (1991)
stated:
Females need to be educated and provided with assertiveness strategies, but
we should not forget that males are the perpetrators of rape . . . We are too
often unwilling to hold men accountable for rape, and as a result, women are
held responsible for men’s behavior and thus the problem of rape and related
issue of rape prevention. (pp. 246-247).

Although such programs for women might have value as deterrent strategies,
ultimately, truly effective rape prevention must single out the perpetrators and
potential perpetrators along with their reasons for engaging in rape (Lonsway, 1996).

7
While the risk reduction approach, which targets women, is valuable, it does not
address the root cause of the violence. Thus, it is shortsighted for the emphasis to be
on women’s deterrence programs without addressing the greater problem of men’s
accountability (Berkowitz, 2001).
Furthermore, Berkowitz (2004) stated, “men should take responsibility of
preventing violence against women because of the untold harm it causes to women in
men’s lives and the ways in which it directly hurts men” (p. 1). Berkowitz added
that, when men victimize women, women may become suspicious of all men, based
on the actions of a few, which has a negative effect on relationships. Additionally,
holding unhealthy attitudes about sexual behavior can cause men to enact violence
upon one another, eroding opportunities for men to bond meaningfully (Berkowitz,
2004a). Ultimately, while only a small percentage of men are abusers, all men affect
society in such a way as to influence would-be perpetrators. Thus, it is as important
for men as it is for women to work toward sexual abuse prevention (Berkowitz,
2002, 2003, 2004a; Katz, n.d.).
In recent years, sexual abuse prevention programs have moved beyond the
traditional ones that were presented only to women (Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante,
2007; Schewe, 2002). Rather than focusing on potential victims of sexual assault,
namely women, campus educators began to see potential perpetrators and non-
victims as the focus of intervention. As a result, most of the college campus
prevention programs today have been redirected toward educating non-victims and
are composed of either single-sex or mixed-gender classes. They often utilize

8
workshops aimed at correcting misperceived sexual cues, debunking rape myths, and
describing how to obtain positive consent (Hong, 2000).
Often, mixed-gender classes or workshops are offered on campuses owing to
the convenience of being able to teach and reach a large audience at once or because
schools often are not willing or able to split up the classroom into single-gender
classes (Schewe, 2002). Researchers have suggested that the mixed-gender classes or
workshops may not be the most effective way to prevent sexual aggression or
violence, and the evaluations of such programs do not show clear benefits for either
men or women (Berkowitz, 2001, 2002; Schewe & O’Donohue, 1993a).
Berkowitz, Burkhart, and Bourg (1994) contend that when programs mix
genders, they inadvertently advance the idea of conflict between the sexes and are
ultimately polarizing. Schewe and O’Donohue (1993a) have warned that, owing to
the differences in the information that men and women need concerning rape, the
programs have to be very careful about selecting information to present. They stated:
In the course of a rape prevention program women may learn that rape and
date rape occur very frequently, that most rapes go unreported to police, and
that they should avoid risky situations. Men in the same audience may learn
that rape is a common experience (i.e., ‘normal’), that if they do commit rape
the chances of being caught are very slim, and that if they find and rape a
women in a risky situation, it is her own fault for being there. (p. 680).

In other words, the information that is presented in mixed-gender programs might
normalize aggressive male behaviors for men, leading to an increased likelihood of
sexual aggression. Additionally, men may feel like the villains in mixed-gender

9
groups and be reluctant to attend a meeting if they feel that the women may be
hostile toward them (Brecklin & Forde, 2001).
In summary, men and women react differently to rape education programs
based on their differential relationship to the topic (Lonsway, 1996). In addition to
the clear differences in goals when presenting programs, the efficacy of the
components of a rape prevention program may be different, including duration and
context, the presenters and their mode of expression, methods of and approaches to
intervention, and the tools used to relay information (Lonsway, 1996). Therefore, the
programs should have different strategies and goals, depending on whether they are
directed to men or women.
Overall, prevention programs that target women-only and mixed-gender
programs are limited in their ability to impart prevention efforts effectively
(Berkowitz, 2004b; Lonsway, 1996). Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that there
should be more programs developed that include components exclusively for men;
such programs present the best chance of achieving the prevention of rape
(Berkowitz, 2002; Lonsway, 1996; Schewe & O’Donohue, 1993a).
Rape prevention programs on college campuses that target men, however, are
very limited, and very few studies have explored their impact on college men. A
detailed examination of current practices of men-only prevention programs on
college campuses is presented in the following chapter.

10
Statement of the Problem
College female students are at an elevated risk of becoming victims of sexual
violence (Feltey et al., 2005; Fisher, Fullen & Turner, 2000). As such, a broad array
of programs on campuses has been put into place to address assault. It began with the
prevention program that suggested women take precautionary efforts to reduce the
risks of sexual assaults (Barone, Wolgemuth & Linder, 2007; O’Donohue, Yeater &
Fanetti, 2003; Schewe & O’Donohue, 1996), and then evolved to having prevention
programs focused on mixed-sex groups and finally to the intervention that focused
on single-sex workshops. With the numerous prevention programs that have been
implemented at colleges and universities, Schewe and O’Donohue (1993a) have
noted that the current state of rape prevention programming added little to our
knowledge about prevention because the literature evaluating these programs was
very limited. The literature often criticized researchers who evaluated the
effectiveness of their own prevention program, stating that they did not provide
sufficient evidence to prove its effectiveness (Breitenbecher, 2000; Lonsway, 1996).
Moreover, other criticism from the literature pointed to small sample sizes
and lack of medium to long-term follow-up; that is, many sexual violence prevention
programs have been shown to be effective in producing short-term reductions in
rape-supportive attitudes, but there is little evidence of the impact of these
interventions in the long run (Breitenbecher, 2000; Lonsway, 1996). The literature
(Sundt, et al, 2008) suggested that very few studies look beyond even a month after
intervention. Thus, studies that conducted a long-term follow-up assessing the

11
effectiveness of the program are very minimal. Moreover, although some studies did
include longer-term follow-ups, the studies have shown that positive effects
deteriorated over time or there was not adequate evidence to support the outcomes.
As college education programs have emerged as one of the more popular strategies
for sexual violence prevention, students, administrators, and researchers want to
know, “What kind of prevention strategies work?”
Purpose of the Study
In recent years, there have been thousands of news stories about youth
violence, showing that such violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated not by youths of
both sexes, but rather by adolescent males (Katz, 2004). Research shows that
prevention programs that targeted young people for intervention provided
opportunities for primary prevention and resulted in the deterrence of violence
(Morrison et al, 2004; Yeaster & O’Donohue, 1999). However, little is known about
the impact of preventive educational sessions or workshops that specifically target
men, and evidence supporting the effectiveness of these programs remains
insufficient and limited (Morrison et al, 2004).
Mainly, this study assesses the correlations of participating in a prevention
program, Men Creating Attitudes for Rape-free Environments (Men CARE), and
participants’ attitudes and behavior toward sexual violence. This prevention program
is designed to reduce targeted male students’ support for rape myths, significantly
increase targeted male students’ behaviors that would decrease violence, and reduce

12
the rate of sexual violence committed by all male students against women (Sundt,
Battle, & Li, 2008).
Therefore, the purpose of the study is to examine the associations between
college men’s participation in a workshop on preventing sexual violence, and their
attitudes about and self-reported behaviors toward women. In addition, this study
also looked at how the attitudes about and self-reported behaviors toward women
differ by cohorts. Specifically, this study is focused on examining the relationship of
the prevention program for its immediate efforts as well as the maintenance of the
efforts over 12 months by tracking the changes in attitudes and behavior scores. The
Men CARE program has the following characteristics: it focuses on a men-only
audience, taps peer leaders who reflect campus diversity, and addresses its audience
as allies (Sundt & Henneman, no date). Most importantly, the Men CARE program
focuses on empowered male students to make changes such as “understanding ways
of getting consent, recognizing problematic behavior in peers, and intervening in
social situations” (Sundt & Henneman, no date). Determining the association
between the program and college men’s attitudes and behaviors will be a small but
important step toward reducing sexual violence on college campuses. Notably,
finding ways to reduce the probability of sexually abusive behavior in undergraduate
men through effective prevention programs is an important step toward reducing
violence against women on campuses (Gilbert, Heesacker, & Gannon, 1991; Yeater
& O’Donohue, 1999). Moreover, the potential contribution of Men CARE is creating

13
innovative auspicious approaches that contribute to or replace older ones. Further
details of the Men CARE program are discussed in Chapter 2.
Research Questions
The research questions concern the changes in college men’s attitudes and
behavior toward women before participating in a two-hour workshop on sexual
violence and 12 months after the workshop. Four specific questions were developed
to guide this study:
1. What is the association, if any, between college men’s participation in a
workshop on preventing sexual violence, and their attitudes about toward
women?
a. To what extent does the association vary, based on students’
group affiliations?
b. To what extent does the association vary by student ethnicity?
2. What is the association, if any, between college men’s participation in a
workshop on preventing sexual violence, and their self-reported behaviors
toward women?
a. To what extent does the association vary, based on students’
group affiliations?
b. To what extent does the association vary by student ethnicity?

14
3. To what extent do college men’s attitudes about toward women differ by
cohort?
a. To what extent does this difference, if any, vary by students’
group affiliations?
b. To what extent does this difference, if any, vary by student
ethnicity?
4. To what extent do college men’s self-reported behaviors (b) toward
women differ by cohort?
a. To what extent does this difference, if any, vary by students’
group affiliations?
b. To what extent does this difference, if any, vary by student
ethnicity?
Hypotheses
1. H1: There is an association between college men’s participation in a
workshop on preventing sexual violence and their attitudes about and
self-reported behaviors toward women.
2. H1: There is a difference by cohort in college men’s attitudes about and
self-reported behaviors toward women.
Significance of the Study
This study seeks to provide a small but important contribution to the
constituents of higher education who work to reduce sexual violence on college
campuses. The findings of this study will provide much needed evidence to current

15
knowledge and best practices in the field of sexual violence prevention programs. On
the knowledge level, research indicates that there is an urgent need for primary
prevention initiatives related to sexual violence for young people as they are working
out their identities and values, as well as beginning their own intimate relationships
(Mulroney, 2003 as cited from Chung, O’Leary & Hand, 2006). Moreover, campus
violence is a concern not only for students, both male and female, but also for the
faculty and staff. Prevention efforts are important to suppress violence ahead of time
by raising awareness in men and attempting to reach the potential perpetrators. This
study provides a piece of information about the men-only prevention programs on
college campuses today and offers data for a one-year follow up post-test. It focuses
on providing factual information so the program may offer evidence in the
relationship between participating in the workshop and the differences in the
attitudes and behavior scores among the participants. Because there has been little
research in this area that uses a longitudinal perspective, it is likely that the results of
this study will contribute another piece of evidence to our knowledge of rape
prevention techniques by which women will benefit as instances of sexual assault
decrease and men will benefit because the programs teach those who are at risk for
being abusive to be more empathic and responsible toward women as well as
empowering them to stop potential rape.
Methodology
This research involves a secondary data analysis using data that were
generated from an undergraduate men-only sexual violence prevention project, Men

16
CARE. The project was funded by Department of Education grants and focused on
men’s leadership and social norms as the primary prevention strategies (Sundt et al.,
2008).
The research design is quantitative, driven by the nature of the research
questions. Non-experimental statistical analysis was used to assess the relationship
between the independent and dependent variables. The instrument for this study
contained a 37-multisection-item survey. The sample population included male
members of fraternities, athletic teams, or other registered student organizations at a
private research university. The data were collected on three independent groups: (a)
male students who took the survey test before attending the Men CARE workshop in
spring 2005 through fall 2006; (b) male students who had participated in the Men
CARE workshop in 2005-2006 who completed a follow up survey test identical to
the pre-test in fall 2006; and (c) male students who took the survey test before
attending the Men CARE workshop in spring 2007. A list of the groups is
summarized in Table 1.
The rationale for using three groups was to be able to compare the Pre-
workshop 2006 and Post-workshop 2006 Groups (Groups 1 and 2) to examine the
relationship between the workshop and the differences in attitudes and behavior
scores. In addition, the study also looked at two other pairs, Groups 3 and 2, and
Groups 1 and 3, to determine if the attitudes and behavior scores differed by cohorts.
A total of 901 valid surveys were collected and entered by the researchers.
Descriptive analysis, such as frequency and means were used. Further, a t-test and

17
chi-square were performed to examine the relationship between the variables. The
details of statistical analysis are further described in Chapter 3. The SPSS, Version
14.0 software package was used for the quantitative analysis of the study.

Table 1. List of the Groups

Group Name Description
Group 1
(Pre-workshop 2006)
Male students who took the survey test before attending
the Men CARE workshop in spring 2005 through fall
2006.
Group 2
(Post-workshop
2006)
Male students who had participated in the Men CARE
workshop in 2005-2006 who completed a follow up survey
test identical to the pre-test in spring 2007.
Group 3
(Pre-workshop 2007)
Male students who took the survey test before attending
the Men CARE workshop in spring 2007.

Assumptions
The following assumptions are made for this study: (a) participants were
honest when filling out the questionnaire; (b) participants were capable of
understanding and answering the questionnaire; (c) participants responded to the
questionnaire to the best of their ability; (d) participants had sufficient proficiency in
English to fill out the survey; (e) the measures are reliable and valid indicators of the
constructs to be studied; (f) the results were collected and analyzed with appropriate
research protocols and statistical methods; and (g) the results of this study will be
sufficiently comprehensive to include an array of universities and college students.

18
Limitations
The validity of the study is limited to the reliability of the instruments used.
Second, the sample population included members of fraternities, athletic teams, or
other registered student organizations. These groups may not be representative of all
students from college campuses around the nation. Third, the response rate of the
study may have been affected by the characteristics of a particular population.
Fourth, the study was limited to subjects who agreed to participate voluntarily. Fifth,
the study was limited to the number of subjects surveyed and the amount of time
available to conduct the study.
Finally, the other limitation of this study is the self-selection process. Since
the participants were asked to take part in the workshop voluntarily, the principles of
probability sampling have not been applied. Thus, respondent self-selection rather
than means of probability make up the samples (Bethlehem, 2008). For example, the
participants who were willing to take part in the workshop and surveys voluntarily
are more inclined to change their attitudes about and behavior toward sexual
violence because they decided to participate in the study. Bethlehem (2008) argues
that since the researcher cannot be in the control of the election process, the selection
probabilities are unspecified, and biased approximations can affect the accuracy of
what is being analyzed. As the result, the self-selection can cause estimates of
population characteristics to be biased. This can have a major impact on survey
results.

19
Delimitations
Owing to the nature of a large, private university, this study was delimited to
the subjects who agreed to participate voluntarily, the number of subjects surveyed,
and the amount of time available to conduct the study.
Definition of Terms
Throughout this document, several acronyms and specific terms are used
repeatedly. Following are definitions of these terms as they pertain to this study.
Attitudes Towards Woman Scale (ATWS) is used to measure the effectiveness
of an intervention in modifying attitudes toward rape. Research on this scale
indicates that rapists hold more positive attitudes toward rape than do rape
counselors, and that when men have negative attitudes toward women, they are more
likely to commit rape or disregard rape as a serious crime (Field, 1978).
Bystander approach involves training groups of individuals on how to
interrupt situations, before they happen, that could lead to assault; intervene in
situations that involve sexual violence; speak out against social norms that support
sexual violence; and have the skills to be effective and supportive allies to survivors.
Researchers have found that a bystander can take a primary role in preventing sexual
violence in the broader community, including college campuses (Banyard, Moynihan
& Plante, 2007; Berkowitz, 2003; Foubert, 2000; Katz, 1995).
Cohort represents people who have similar traits or experiences within a
certain time frame, such as being born in the same year.

20
Cohort Effect expresses the differences in traits within a field of research; for
example, a trait can appear over a time period among persons who are classified by a
common temporal event or shared life experience, such as being born in the same
year.
Egalitarian behavior refers to the relations between the sexes. Fried (1967)
defines egalitarian behavior as that which often “regard[s] women as inferior and
restrict[s] their roles and status accordingly” (p. 33). Such behavior often consists of
negative attitudes toward women. In regard to the relationship between egalitarian
behavior and negative attitudes toward women, Field (1978) believes that negative
attitudes towards women are correlated with positive attitudes toward rape.
Empathy-based approach is intended to develop participants’ empathy
toward rape victims (Foubert, Tatum & Donahue, 2006; Foubert & Perry, 2007).
Research indicates that empathy toward rape victims is positively correlated with
ratings of defendant guilt, defendant responsibility, and the perception of rape as a
more serious crime and negatively correlated with the self-reported desire to rape
(Foubert et al, 2006; Schewe, 2002).
Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMAS) was developed by Burt (1980) and is
the most common instrument measuring sexual assault prevention outcomes. Rape
myths include such misguided beliefs as women really want to be raped or are
somehow to blame. Burt noted that rape myth acceptance has been shown to
correlate positively with sexual conservatism (Burt, 1980), adversarial sexual beliefs
(Burt, 1980), acceptance of interpersonal violence (Burt, 1980), self-reported

21
likelihood of committing rape (Hamilton & Yee, 1990), and self-reported sexually
aggressive behavior among men (Koss, Leonard, Beezely, & Oros, 1985; Malamuth,
1989). Overall, the correlative data provide support for the construct validity of rape
myth acceptance (Breitenbecher, 2000).
Social norms refer to the acceptability of an action or belief. Often, within a
group or community, there are unspoken rules about what is “normal.” Perceptions
of social norms influence what people of a specific group or community will say and
do. Thus, if the sexual violence prevention program provides normative feedback
about actual, healthy norms for a group or community, then it should effectively
reduce violence against women.
Organization of the Study
This chapter presented the introduction, background of the problem,
statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions, the significance
of the study, a brief description of the methodology, assumptions, delimitations,
limitations, and the definition of terms.
Chapter 2 is the review of the relevant literature. It addresses the following
topics: the history and background of sexual assault prevention programs on college
campuses, review and assessments of different types of prevention programs that
currently dominate the field, and the prevention program that this study examines.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology to be used in the study, including the
research design, population and sampling procedure, and the instruments and their
selection or development, together with information on validity and reliability. The

22
chapter also contains the procedures for data collection and the plan for data
analysis.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the study as it is described in Chapter 3.
Chapter 5 discusses and analyzes the results, culminating in conclusions and
recommendations in order to hone the design in forthcoming programs to prevent
sexual violence on college campuses.

23
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Every hour in the United States, 28 acts of rape are committed (Rennison,
2003). Research (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000) shows that females between the
ages of 12 and 34 are at the greatest risk of being raped or sexually assaulted.
Specifically, the risk or sexually aggressive behavior is particularly prevalent on
college campuses (Banyard et al., 2005; Foubert & Newberry, 2006; Hall, 1996;
Koss et al, 1987). In fact, “the college years happen to coincide with the greatest
period of risk for rape” (Warshaw, 1988, p. 190). Studies (Fisher et al., 2000) that
document the problem of sexual violence among college women suggested that
during any given academic year, nearly 5 percent of college women are victimized.
Assuming that the risk of victimization is the same during summer months and
remains stable over a person’s time in college, Fisher et al., (2000) projected that
over an average of five years of undergraduate college life, the percentage of female
college students who have experienced rape or attempted rape is between 20% and
25% (Fisher et al., 2000). Higher education practitioners have responded to this
alarmingly high incidence of sexual assault by implementing educational programs
that are intended to prevent or reduce sexual assault. Colleges and universities are
making efforts to develop innovative sexual assault education programs to prevent
sexual acts of violence on college campuses. A myriad of prevention approaches in
the area of sexual violence on college campuses and theories of sexual violence have
been studied.

24
Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to review the literature on the current
on-campus sexual assault prevention practices. Prior to the discussion of each on-
campus sexual assault prevention program, the chapter begins with a brief summary
of causal relationship between attitude and behavior, which is followed by a brief
history of the rape education programs. Then the chapter moves to the literature on
the extent to which the different types of prevention programs are effective, with
special attention paid toward three types of men-only programs that offer a
promising approach to preventing sexual violence (Berkowitz, 2004; Brecklin &
Forde, 2001; Earle, 1996; Foubert & La Voy, 2000). Each review of the prevention
programs includes a general overview of the program, including relevant theories, an
outline of the details of the interventions, and an assessment of the program in terms
of its efficacy in changing men’s attitudes and self-reported behavior. Examining the
critical elements that produce effective or ineffective results in different men-only
prevention workshops can guide higher education institutions in developing and
implementing programs to lower the rates of campus sexual assault. The chapter
concludes with a brief discussion on the prevention program, Men CARE that this
study examines.
Attitudes and Behavior
Prevention programs attempted to change the attitudes and/or behaviors of
the participants. The ultimate goal of the prevention program was to stop sexual
violence (action/behavior) against women. For the purpose of this study, the
definitions of attitude and behavior are briefly reviewed. Psychology researcher,

25
Rokeach (1966) suggested that attitudes are fairly established stances that are a
group of beliefs that create outlooks and influence approaches or reactions to events.
Changes in attitudes can occur either by changing the substance of one belief (or
several beliefs), within the group or changing the arrangement of the group
(Rokeach, 1966). Our experience forms our attitudes or mental faculties and thus
affects our behavior. Because experience creates attitudes, it is possible to change
those attitudes through new experiences. Hearing new information can affect
attitudes because it becomes part of the overall experience that causes attitudes and
therefore can cause a shift in those attitudes. Therefore, persuasion or new ideas can
be an effective tool in influencing attitudes in order to achieve positive results in
changing behavior. (Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, no date). Thus,
some researchers (Breckler, 1984; Zanna, Olson & Fazio, 1980) believe that since
attitudes and behaviors are interconnected pieces, changing one can change another.
However, there are other researchers (Rokeach, 1966; Wicker, 1969) who
have suggested, based on past research, that the relationship of attitude and the
prediction of behavior remain inconsistent owing to many factors. Examples are the
design of measuring instruments (Himmelstrand, 1960; Tittle & Hill, 1967), and the
need for a broader range of variables so that the attitude variable is used together
with other variables, such as the objects and the situations (Wicker, 1969). This
assessment is valid because the measurements of the attitude and/or behavioral
change on the prevention program assessments were poorly developed. Very few
were empirically evaluated. Like many other programs in an academic environment,

26
they were presented in too short a time period and happened only once (Sundt et al,
2008). Others (Koss & Dinero, 1989, Schewe & O’Donohue, 1993, Lonsway, 1996,
Earle, 1996, Heppner, 1995, Sochting, Fairbrother, & Koch, 2004) criticized that
most of the studies only used attitude change as the sole outcome variable and did
not include behavior as part of the outcome assessment. Thus, there was a lack of
proof that attitude and/or behavior had changed and was sustained.
Prevention Programs on College Campuses Overview
The following section will briefly discuss the history or trends of college
campus sexual violence programs that have evolved over the years. Then, a
discussion of the most current practices of rape education programs, such as men-
only prevention programs on college campuses, will follow.
Brief History of Rape Education Programs
Education has been an important component in the response to sexual
violence on campus. In the past, the most extensive form of sexual assault
“prevention” programming on college campuses was often the precautionary efforts
undertaken by women to reduce risks of sexual assault, such as being aware of their
surroundings at all times and being especially careful in situations in which alcohol
is present (Barone, Wolgemuth, & Linder, 2007; O’Donohue, Yeater, & Fanetti,
2003; Schewe & O’Donohue, 1996). These types of strategies give women the tools
to be proactive. However, such an approach is not really preventive. Researchers
believe that this deterrence approach involves the self-imprisonment of women and

27
other costly precautionary efforts (Barone, Wolgemuth & Linder, 2007; Schewe &
O’Donohue, 1996).
Moreover, regardless of how well trained potential victims are, it is
unavoidable that “there are men who will attempt to commit acts of sexual violence”
(Schewe & O’Donohue, 1996, p. 457). As Berkowitz (2002) pointed out, sexual
violence prevention is clearly a men’s issue because women simply do not initiate
the crime (Sundt et al, 2008); it is men who are most likely to commit sexual
violence (U.S. Department of Justice, 1994).
Thus, it is clear that those best able to stop rape are men (Sundt et al, 2008).
In the past, however, most universities have not focused their preventive strategies
on educating and changing the behaviors of men in the ways that could potentially
stop rape before it occurs.
Men-only Prevention Programs
In the early 1990s, researchers such as Berkowitz (2001, 2002, 2004b),
suggested that all-male programs help counteract male violence-prone attitudes and
behavior more effectively than do mixed-gender groups. Over the years much
research suggested that men-only prevention programs have been successful in
preventing sexual aggression and violence. Studies on men-only prevention
programs will be explained in greater detail in the later sections, but in summary, the
possible reasons include men are more comfortable, less defensive, and more honest
in all-male groups; single-gender groups reveal a diversity of opinions, and men feel
safer disagreeing or putting pressure on each other in all-male groups (Berkowitz,

28
2004b). In contrast, men are less likely to talk openly and participate in the presence
of women; mixed gender discussions can become polarized, and focusing on risk
reduction in mixed-gender groups can result in victim blaming.
Moreover, the effectiveness of single-gender, male-only, prevention
programs has been shown in the literature (Berkowitz, 1994; Breitenbecher, 2000;
Foubert & Marriott, 1996, 1997; Lonsway, 1996; Schewe & O’Donohue, 1993). In
Breiatenbecher’s (2000) review of the college student sexual assault prevention
outcome literature, she found that “the ratio of successes to null results and/or
negative outcomes was 10:1 for all-male interventions, 3:1 for all-female
interventions, and 18:7 for mixed-sex interventions” (p. 32). These data indicate a
trend for more positive outcomes with single-sex programs, especially among men.
Additional studies, such as those of Brecklin and Forde (2001) and Earle (1996), also
confirmed that all-male prevention programs produce more positive changes in
attitudes and behaviors than do mixed groups or co-educational audiences. To
understand better how and why these programs are effective, the next section
presents the literature on the three best practices of the male-only prevention
programs offered on different college campuses. Each review of the men-only
prevention programs includes a general overview of the program, including relevant
theories applied to the program, an outline of the details of the interventions, and an
assessment of the program in terms of its efficacy in changing men’s attitudes and
self-reported behavior.

29
College Campus Men-Only Prevention Programs Overview –
Assessment, Content and Delivery
As a result of the positive outcomes associated with men-only programs,
different types of these prevention programs are offered across campuses
(Breitenbecher, 2000). Often, these prevention programs take the form of workshops
that meet one or more times and are 45 minutes to 2 hours in length. The primary
elements of these programs include educating the participants on the pervasiveness
of sexual violence on college campuses and the fallacies of rape stereotypes,
dialogues regarding social roles in relation to sexual roles, discussions of high-risk
behavior when dating, and the cultivation of empathy for victims of rape
(Breitenbecher, 2000). Different types of programs, however, have different
philosophies on how to help men learn about sexual violence (Breitenbecher, 2000).
The recent men-only prevention programs’ philosophies can be categorized into
three major themes: fostering empathy for victims, bystander intervention, and the
social norms approach (Berkowitz, 2004).
While these prevention programs differ in approach, they do share several
common assumptions, which are that men are fundamentally responsible for
preventing rape; men need to be part of the prevention process rather than the focus
of blame; workshops are most effective when they are led by peers in small, all
male-groups in which there is a safe forum for expressing attitudes, beliefs, and
feelings; and misconceptions that men may harbor regarding women and sex must be
addressed (Berkowitz, 2002). It is important to note that there are other men-only

30
prevention programs that colleges and universities are using; however, most of these
programs have not been adequately examined and assessed. Therefore, the literature
review focuses only on the programs that have sufficient published evidence from
which to draw conclusions.
The three approaches are described in the following sections. Within the
review of each approach, three subsections are presented: context, which contains a
review of the theoretical background; delivery, which includes a description of a
prevention program that uses the approach and a discussion of how the program
delivers the content of the approach; and assessment, which includes an evaluation of
the methodology, as well as the success, validity, and limitations of the program or
the approach.
Fostering Empathy for Victims
One idealistic method for attempting to change men’s attitudes towards
women and rape was to increase men’s understanding of women’s feelings. By
trying to put men in the position of female victims, programs sought to elicit more
empathic reactions from potential perpetrators. While this method seems logical, its
effects are marginal and ephemeral. However, it cannot entirely be discredited as it is
useful in tandem with other methods. The following section reviews the content,
assessment and delivery of a program that focused solely on bringing out male
empathy.
Content. Different from the other programs that focus mainly on men as
potential perpetrators (Schewe & O’Donohue, 1993a), this program focuses on

31
fostering empathy for victims.) This approach uses victim empathy, a cognitive-
emotional recognition of a rape victim’s trauma (Hildebran & Pithers, 1989), in
building and developing understanding and empathy toward victims or survivors of
rape, understanding rape trauma, having more aversion to rape, and recognizing the
aftermath of rape (shame, guilt, depression, pregnancy, and social sanctions), which
all aim to discourage men from harming women (Schewe, 2002). Osland, Fitch, and
Willis (1996) support this approach and note that low rape proclivity and high
empathy toward rape survivors are strongly correlated. In other words, finding ways
to increase men’s empathy toward victims or survivors of rape may lower their
likelihood of raping.
The idea of building empathy for the victims is based on the two prominent
theories of attitude and behavior change, belief system theory and the Elaboration
Likelihood Model (ELM) of Petty and Cacioppo (1986). Belief system theory
contends that, to create permanent change, it is necessary to use methods that do not
contradict the way people fundamentally see themselves (Grube, Mayton, & Ball-
Rokeach, 1994). Thus, the theory suggests that, to succeed at changing men’s
attitudes in the rape prevention and intervention programs, men must be influenced
by appealing to the beliefs that they hold about being potential helpers, rather than
potential assailants (Scheel, Johnson, Schneider & Smith, 2001).
In addition to belief system theory, the concept of ELM also contributes to
rape prevention programming. Petty and Cacioppo (1986) suggest that changes in
mindsets occur by way of peripheral and central route processing. When people are

32
not motivated to process input, they use peripheral route processing, which focuses
on tangential signals, such as the credibility, physical attributes, and honesty of the
presenter. However, when listeners have the will and capacity to reflect on the
information, they use central route processing, which entails an assessment of the
input and its relevance. Both types of thinking can bring about changes in attitudes,
either in favor of or against what is being communicated. This pertains to rape
prevention in that negative attitudes could change for the better either peripherally,
because the lecturer is seen as knowledgeable, or centrally, because positive
perceptions about victims are brought out. Negative results could transpire either
peripherally, because the lecturer is seen as unappealing or unreliable, or centrally, if
notions of victim censure are produced.
The difference between these two thought processes is significant for
programs that prevent sexual abuse because peripheral processing is usually
temporary in terms of changing attitudes, whereas central processing creates attitude
change that is more ingrained and therefore more likely to affect behavior. Hence,
sexual abuse programs are more apt to be effective if they can tap into participants’
central route processing in a way that is positive toward rape prevention. Notably, for
any intervention designed to change lasting attitudes and behavior to be effective,
participants must be motivated to hear a message, be able to understand it, and
perceive the message as relevant to them. In rape prevention programs, participants
must consider rape from a personal perspective, with themselves as victims, to

33
empathize fully with rape survivors and decrease the likelihood of rape (Ellis,
O’Sullivan, & Sowards, 1992).
Delivery. To foster empathy, participants listen to rape victims and their
experiences of the rape and its aftermath and then are asked to write a description of
the victim’s experience or otherwise imagine themselves as the victims (Schewe,
2002). This psychoeducational approach often uses the presentation of stories of
victims by video or through interactive theater to attendees of the workshop (Hall,
1996). Schewe and O’Donohue (1993a) found that a videotape of victims of sexual
aggression discussing their victimization experiences, combined with instructions to
imagine how the victims feel, was effective in reducing the acceptance of
interpersonal violence, adversarial sexual beliefs, and the self-reported likelihood of
sexual abuse of children and rape of women. The videotapes help to facilitate
audience members’ empathy toward rape survivors, allowing men to make
connections with the experiences and thus to change their attitudes and behaviors
(Schewe, 2002).
The other popular prevention program, The Men’s Program, which was
designed by John Foubert (1997), is based on increasing participants’ empathy for
female survivors, understanding rape trauma, and having more aversion to rape. The
Men’s Program is a one-time, one-hour program, and the program is primarily
lecture-oriented, providing an overview and a basic review of rape definitions to the
participants. Discussion is based on a video depicting a male-on-male rape situation,
which later draws parallels between male-on-male rape experiences and experiences

34
common to female rape survivors (Foubert & La Voy, 2000). The approach is based
on research that suggests that victim empathy approaches are less effective when
female victims are portrayed and is designed to help men understand what it might
feel like to be raped and to develop empathy for female victims. In other words,
seeing a male attacker forcibly penetrating another man allows men to see
themselves in the woman’s position. The workshop then draws parallels from the
male-on-male’s rape experience to common rape experiences of women. Through
this analogy, male participants are able to reevaluate their beliefs regarding rape and
rape myths.
Assessment. Results of both quantitative (Foubert & La Voy, 2000) and
qualitative (Foubert, 2000b) assessments of the program suggest that the program is
successful in increasing awareness of and sensitivity to rape, resulting in a lasting
change in attitudes and behavior. It is important to note that, to achieve sufficient
statistical power for demonstrating the reduction of negative rape-related attitudes
and behavior, there must be long-lasting results (Scheve & O’Donohue, 1993a).
Thus, instead of relying on measures of attitudes and behavioral intentions reported
immediately following program participation, the participants must be followed for a
long period of time, such as several months after the program is over (Longsway,
1996; Scheve & O’Donohue, 1993). Foubert and Newberry (2000, 2006) found that
the program was effective in changing participants’ attitudes and behavior even
months after the workshop had been conducted. Moreover, evidence of the
effectiveness of the program can be found in the qualitative assessment report

35
(Foubert & La Voy, 2000), which indicates that there are positive results in attitudes
and self-reported behavioral changes in the participants seven months after the
program was presented. The report states that more than half of the participants
reported that the program made them more aware of rape, made them think about
and increased their knowledge of how frequently rape happens, and increased their
sensitivity to what is experienced by rape survivors and how to help them recover
(Foubert & La Voy, 2000).
Hamilton and Yee (1990) noted that men who have an understanding of
rape’s effect on its victims and the fallacy of rape myths are less likely to indicate
that they would commit rape. This understanding has shown in the qualitative
measure in Foubert’s (2000) report and reconfirmed by the quantitative analysis
(Foubert, 2000). The program results in significant declines in men’s likelihood of
raping women and in their beliefs in stereotyped and false thinking about rape, rape
victims, and rapists (Foubert, 2000; Foubert & Marriott, 1997; Foubert & McEwen,
1998; Schewe & O’Donohue, 1993). Foubert (2000) concluded that the more the
program is able to motivate the participants to take part in the program, the more
they were able to understand the material and concepts, and the more relevant the
program seemed to them, the less likely they were to report an intent to rape or to
believe in rape myths. Thus, Foubert (2000) suggest that applying ELM to the men-
only empathy-based prevention program is effective for educating men about rape.
Schewe’s (2002) review of the empirical evaluations of rape prevention
programs from 1984 to 2000 suggests that the victim empathy approach results in

36
positive effects. In the ten programs identified in the literature that targeted victim
empathy, eight reported clear positive effects. Only one program, however, Foubert’s
The Men’s Program, reported having clear long-term positive effects from the victim
empathy approach. Foubert (2000a) concluded that empathizing with other male
victims was most effective in creating overall empathy and generating the highest
success rate for prevention programs.
However, Berkowitz (2002) stated that such approaches do not challenge or
attempt to change men’s socialization and identity as men. Rather, empathy
induction approaches encourage men to acknowledge and take the problem of rape
seriously. Thus, according to Berkowitz (2002), an empathy induction approach
might be most effective only in situations in which there is little awareness or
recognition of the problem. In this regard, Berkowitz (2001) noted that Foubert’s The
Men Program does not “stand up under scrutiny” (p. 1). Berkowitz (2001, 2002,
2004b) questions Foubert’s claim of the uniqueness of the program, the effect of
men’s likelihood of raping, the duration of change after the program, and the way the
data were analyzed.
In addition, Berkowitz (2001) does not agree that the intervention of The
Men’s Program has significantly lowered men’s likelihood of raping because the
control group and the experimental group of The Men’s Program study did not show
significantly different scores on the variable of “men’s likelihood of raping.”
Berkowitz stated, “decreases in men’s self-reported likelihood of raping were not
associated with any reduction of men’s actual coercive behavior” (p. 2). Further,

37
Berkowitz believes that Foubert has overstated the effectiveness of the program.
Berkowitz suggests that, although Foubert has a right to claim that the time lapse
between pre- and post-tests is three times greater for his study than for any other
program, this statistic is misleading (Berkowitz, 2001). In this regard, Foubert (n.d.)
changed this statement in one of his presentations to “the effects of the program last
longer than any other program evaluated in the research literature” (p. 3). However,
readers are still able to find the article on his website in which he claims that the time
lapse for The Men’s Program is three times greater than that of other programs.
Berkowitz (2001) also criticizes the content and approach of Foubert’s
program. Specifically, Berkowitz (2001) and Davis (1999) are opposed to the idea of
any prevention program that only uses the “male-on-male” rape scenario. Davis
stated that the video encourages fallacies about and exploitation of male rape. The
other concern that Davis raises is that the video may perpetuate myths about the rape
of both men and women. In the video, the assailant is coarse, unhygienic, and
unsavory. However, as noted earlier, the campus rape is often more likely to occur
among acquaintances than among pathological strangers.
Although Davis (1999) agrees with Foubert’s intent to overcome men’s
defensiveness in rape prevention programming, researchers such as Berkowitz
(2002) and Davis (1999) believe that the “men-take-care-of-women” archetype is not
the best one to use with program participants. They argue that there is a correlation
between rape and the conventional role of the male as protector because men remain
in a position of control. Berkowitz (2004b) suggested that the program itself “fall[s]

38
short of asking men to make changes in [their] own and other men’s behavior and
run[s] the risk of appealing to a male-helper mentality” (p. 3), which he defines as
the traditional model of masculinity that rape prevention programs should avoid
(Berkowitz, 2001, 2004). Davis questions whether approaching the issue via
conventional male roles could hamper men’s awareness of the problem rather than
increase it. Additionally, when female input is glaringly absent from the workshop, it
is unlikely that real empathy for women can be achieved. Men speaking for women
may be more of a problem than an absence of empathy because it keeps the power
with the men. Therefore, Berkowitz (2004b) suggests that rape prevention programs
should include women’s voices in the workshop, that is, “to include and explicitly
acknowledge examples of women’s experiences” (p. 3), which Foubert’s The Men’s
Program does not do.
Berkowitz (2001) concluded that The Men’s Program is only “marginally”
effective because “it is all-male, peer facilitated, and interactive and [uses] a male-
on-male rape scenario” (p. 3). He suggested that there are other important elements
that should be included to create an effective men-only prevention program. In
response, Foubert (n.d.) stated that the success of The Men’s Program is due to the
male-on-male rape scenario video presentation and that The Men’s Program does
produce effective results, creating a decline in rape myth acceptance and no rebound
after seven months. Further, as Schewe (2002) stated, victim empathy programs
reveal that having males empathize with other male victims of rape is a key aspect of

39
the more successful programs. Both Foubert and Berkowitz want men to identify
with the rape victim, but they have different ideas about how this is best achieved.
Bystander Intervention
The second approach, bystander intervention, has been a more effective
method for changing attitudes and behavior. In part this is so because it is more
doable than empathy, which attempts to change the way men think; whereas
bystander intervention is active and allows men to play positive roles in rape
prevention as opposed to being the villains.
Content. Bystander intervention attempts to go beyond empathy and
individual change and does not rely on traditional programs that often identify men
as potential perpetrators or focus on women as victims. This approach frames sexual
assault prevention as a social problem that requires that men intervene in other men’s
behavior (Berkowitz, 2002). Thus, this type of prevention program is aimed at
developing the intervention behavior of other men to help men develop and engage
in behaviors that change the outcome of a potential rape situation (Banyard et al.,
2005, 2007; Berkowitz, 2002, 2004). The bystander approach implicitly asks men to
reexamine the socialization and cultural conditioning of men and promote alternate
ways of “being a man.”
According to Funk and Berkowitz (2000), men should see sexual assault as a
social problem, not as an individual one, and therefore should intervene when they
see other men behaving inappropriately. Such behavior includes interrupting
situations that could lead to an assault before it happens or during an incident,

40
speaking out against social norms that support sexual violence, and having the skills
to be an effective and supportive ally to survivors (Banyard et al., 2005, 2007).
Further, the bystander prevention program focuses on producing the following
positive outcomes: helping to create new situational and community norms for
intervention to prevent sexual violence, providing role models to demonstrate helpful
behavior, and building a repertoire of specific skills for bystanders. In return, the
program creates attitude changes that induce men to take responsibility for rape, not
just as potential perpetrators, but also as members of a community who need to
understand that sexual violence is never normal and is everyone’s problem (Banyard
et al., 2005, 2007).
The research also suggests that the bystander approach is a potentially
powerful tool for influencing students’ perceptions of the likelihood of experiencing
negative consequences as a result of using force in sexual relationships (Berkowitz,
1999; Schewe, 2002). By teaching students how they can intervene to prevent rape
and assist survivors of rape, students should begin to perceive rape as a risky
behavior. The process of bystander behavior involves five stages: “noticing the
event, interpreting it as a problem, feeling responsible for the solution, possessing the
necessary skills to act, and intervention” (Latane & Darley, cited in Berkowitz, 2002,
p. 177).
Delivery. Often the bystander program is led by peer leaders who are well-
trained by the specific program. For example, one of the famous bystander programs,
Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP), offers on-site highly interactive two-day

41
training for peer leaders that introduces the participants to the MVP philosophy and
teaching/mentoring methods. The MVP program was developed by Katz in 1993
(Katz, n.d.). The program is often designed to deliver its content to single-sex groups
only, that is, to address either women only or men only.
The program often presents basic information about prevalence, causes, and
consequences of sexual violence; for example, the program educates the participants
on recognizing inappropriate behavior and raising awareness of bystander
responsibility (Banyard et al., 2005). The educational session is often followed by
discussions of how community members can play important prevention roles as
bystanders observing risky situations, either before and during acts of sexual
violence, as a means to intervene, or afterward, if approached by a friend who
discloses that she has been a victim (Banyard et al., 2005, 2007). In addition to the
discussions, the program also includes active learning exercises such as role play.
The role play acts as both a direct and indirect skill-building opportunity. It is used to
help participants think about how they might intervene in the situation safely, such as
using campus police as a resource, and how they can be supportive allies to
survivors. Overall, the content of the program, which includes recognizing
inappropriate behavior, skill building, requesting a commitment to intervene, and
role modeling, is reinforced throughout the sessions.
The MVP program is “a gender violence, bullying, and school violence
prevention approach that encourages young men and women from all
socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic backgrounds to take on leadership roles in their

42
schools and communities” (Katz, n.d., p. 1). The heart of the MVP program is to
allow students, both male and female, to construct and practice viable options via
role-playing and scenarios created by the MVP staff in response to incidents of
harassment, abuse, or violence before, during, or after the fact. Ronal Slaby of the
Harvard Graduate School of Education developed the Habits of Thought model that
the MVP program adapted (Katz, 1995). This model is the foundation for the
program, enabling researchers and participants to understand the actions of all those
involved: victims, perpetrators, and bystanders. The model suggests that the way
people react in circumstances in which a violent assault is likely to occur is the result
of their familiarity with violence, both personal and social, such as through images in
the media and society that become a part of their own thought processes, affecting
their reactions. In other words, how a person responds is the result of his or her
collective experience regarding personal occurrences of violence in combination
with thought patterns that include belief systems, impulse control, reflective
capabilities, and analytical abilities.
Moreover, the program focuses on the role of men as potential bystanders,
rather than on men as actual or potential perpetrators. The MVP program strongly
discourages doing nothing and empowers each student to take an active role in
promoting a positive school climate by confronting abusive peers and supporting
abused peers. Finally, Katz (1995) believes that the MVP program works well with
men owing to its positive approach, which portrays men as empowered bystanders
rather than potential perpetrators. By addressing men in an affirmative manner, men

43
are less defensive and more open to talking about sexual violence, providing a
foundation for more proactive behavior (Katz, n.d.).
Assessment. The standard MVP evaluation is a combination of qualitative
and quantitative approaches designed and constructed to measure the attitudes and
behavior of bystanders in regard to their roles in creating a healthy peer environment
that condemns inappropriate behavior and that provides encouragement for taking a
proactive stance when volatile situations arise (Katz, n.d.; Ward, n.d.). Specific
outcomes that the MVP program evaluates are: (a) changes in levels of student
knowledge and awareness; (b) changes in student attitudes regarding gender violence
and self-efficacy and prevention; and (c) changes in student behavior (Ward, n.d.).
Qualitative data were obtained through focus groups sessions, and quantitative data
were gathered through a pre-post-test survey design. The survey incorporates the AV
scale, which assesses student attitudes toward gender violence broadly defined, and
the SEV scale, which measures self-efficacy in terms of students’ feelings regarding
their ability to prevent or to intervene in situations involving gender violence (Ward,
n.d.). Only a few open-ended questions were included in the post-test survey. Prior to
their involvement in the MVP program, the participants were tested and then were
retested approximately two weeks after they had finished the training.
Banyard et al. (2007) noted that the bystander program is effective across all
the outcome measures typically assessed in rape prevention evaluation research. This
includes decreasing rape myth acceptance, increasing knowledge of sexual violence,
increasing pro-social bystander attitudes, increasing bystander efficacy, and

44
increasing self-reported bystander behaviors. Berkowitz (2004) stated that this
method “can change the peer culture that fosters and tolerates men’s violence” (p. 3).
Ward’s (n.d.) evaluation of the MVP program reveals positive and significant
changes in student knowledge and attitudes, as indicated by survey data, self-reports,
and key informant interviews. Banyard et al., (2007) noted that, based on post-tests,
the bystander prevention program shows persistence of effects over a longer period
of time than do other prevention programs.
Often the post-test of the bystander approach was conducted a few weeks
after the conclusion of the workshop. During the 1999-2000 academic year, Ward
(n.d.) reviewed the data for the MVP program, for which the post-test had been
conducted approximately two weeks after the workshop. Thus, the long-term effects
of the bystander approach are yet to be determined. Berkowitz (2007) has argued that
the bystander approach did not examine the extent to which misperceptions might
inhibit individuals from intervening, such as expressing concern about behaviors that
are bothersome and inappropriate. This concern is raised in a study by Stein and
Barnett (2004) (Cited in Berkowtiz, 2004a), which indicates that what men think
other men will do in a given situation is the clearest indicator of what action they
will or will not take to intervene when a sexual assault is imminent.
The Social Norms Approach
The social norms approach is one of the newest methods for rape prevention
and holds some of the most positive potential for changing the way men think and

45
behave. By addressing societal myths about male masculinity and sexual prowess,
the social norms approach illuminates appropriate sexual behavior.
Content. The social norms approach suggests that a driving force behind
sexual assault is the misperceptions of the behaviors and attitudes toward sexual
assault, which attribute blame to the victims and exonerate the offenders (Berkowitz,
2007; Breitenbecher, 2000; Burt, 1980; Frese, Moya, & Megias, 2004). This
approach suggests that in order to stop rape and sexual manipulation there must be
methods to alter the settings where sexual abuse transpires. In order to do this,
programs need to place emphasis on the behavior of the assailant and the hazards
that may make women susceptible in order to cultivate a societal behavioral
modification. People need to learn what kinds of situations can contribute to assault
and be encouraged to behave in such a way as to decrease the likelihood of
aggression before it transpires.
The social norms approach research suggests that attitudes and behavior
regarding sexual violence are strongly related to rape myths (Berkowitz, 2007; Burt,
1980; Frese et al., 2004). This approach hypothesizes that “[human] behavior is
influenced by incorrect perceptions of how other members of our social groups think
and act” (Berkowitz, 2004b, p. 1). The hypothesis suggests that often people believe
that their peers are engaging in activities such as drinking, smoking, and drug use at
a much higher rate than they actually are and do not realize that many, in truth, are
living a much healthier and tame lifestyle. If people were aware that such extreme
behavior was not the norm, they would be less likely to engage in this unhealthy

46
behavior. A misperception occurs when there is such overestimation or
underestimation of the prevalence of attitudes or behaviors in a group or population
(Berkowitz, 2004b).
Two popular misperceptions are often associated with the situation described
above: pluralistic ignorance and false consensus (Berkowitz, 2005). Pluralistic
ignorance is defined as “violence inhibiting attitudes and/or behaviors of peers and
other community members [that] may be incorrectly perceived to be less healthy
than one’s own attitudes” (Berkowitz, 2007, p. 3). For example, most people believe
that they are among the few living healthy lives, while everyone else is out engaging
in all sorts of risqué behavior, when, in fact, their attitudes or behavior are similar
(Miller & McFarland, 1987, 1991; Prentice & Miller, 1996; Toch & Klofas, 1984).
The other misconception is false consensus, which stands in contrast to
pluralistic ignorance. False consensus is the false assumption that most people are
like themselves, when they are not (Ross, Greene & House, 1977). In other words,
false consensus occurs when people who live outrageous, unhealthy lifestyles think
that the rest of the world also lives that way. Such beliefs are described as a “self-
serving bias” (Berkowitz, 2004b). Such misperceptions allow people to deny that
their behavior represents a serious problem (Berkowitz, 2004b).
Berkowitz (2005) stated that one of the effects of pluralistic ignorance is to
“cause individuals to change their own behavior to approximate the misperceived
norm” (p. 194), whereas false consensus occurs when men falsely believe that peers
are similar in behavior or action, when they are not. In both phenomena, individuals

47
are passively accepting the misperceptions of others or are the carriers of
misconceptions (Berkowitz, 2005; Perkins, 1997). Berkowitz (2005, 2007) suggests
that false consensus and pluralistic ignorance are mutually reinforcing and self-
perpetuating because individuals are discouraged from expressing the opinions and
actions that are falsely believed, while encouraging problem behaviors that are
falsely believed to be normative. That is, using Berkowitz’s (2005) explanation, “the
majority is silent because it thinks it is a minority, and the minority is vocal because
it believes that it represents the majority” (p. 194). One example, cited from
Berkowitz’s study (2007), is that college students frequently think, mistakenly, that
the preponderance of their peers are engaging in all sorts of wanton sexual activity,
both in regard to frequency and safety. Similar findings were seen in other research
indicating that high school students and college men tend to overestimate their peers’
adherence to myths that justify rape and rape supportive behavior (Berkowitz, 2007;
Lynch, Mowrey, Nesbitt & O’Neil, 2004; Martens, Page, Mowry, Daman, Taylor &
Cimini, 2006; Scholly, Katz, Gasocoigne & Holk, 2005).
Intervention based on social norms for those two phenomena focus on
providing accurate normative feedback, such as confronting people who have the
problem behaviors or are carriers of the misperceptions. To provide normative
feedback to communities, groups, and individuals as a way of correcting
misperceptions, the intervention influences behavior by trying to increase correct
perceptions, while using information about norms to guide intervention (Berkowitz,
2004b, 2005; Perkins, 1997). Social norms intervention can override pluralistic

48
ignorance by revealing what is actually normal and healthy behavior. This action
reduces the prevalence of peer pressure, which creates fear of ridicule for being
different, and makes it easier for people to behave in ways that they know are right
(and moderate) because they realize this is, in fact, normal behavior (Berkowitz,
2004b). The application of social norms intervention for false consensus can include
showing the population what is normal behavior and the consequences of excessive,
abnormal behavior so that people in denial are forced to examine themselves and
their behavior and attitudes (DeJong, 2003; Dunnagan, Hayes, Linkenbach &
Shatwell, 2003).
The social norms approach puts forward the idea that fixing false concepts of
what is normal can result in reduced instances of unhealthy behavior and beliefs,
while heightening what is indeed normal behavior (Berkowitz, 2004b). Social
marketing and social norms marketing philosophies aim to correct men’s
misperceptions through the use of men’s influence on one another (i.e., peer
influence), using media campaigns that portray men in positive, non-violent roles, or
through social norms marketing campaigns that provide information about the true
norms for men’s behavior (Berkowitz, 2003, 2004). Berkowitz (2007) believes that
this approach can foster environments that resist and intervene to prevent violence by
reducing risk factors and identifying problems before violence occurs. Sundt, et al
(2008) noted that this approach “strengthens and reinforces the attitudes and beliefs
that may already be shared by most men but might have been subdued due to the
wrong perceptions of other people’s behaviors” (p. 14).

49
Many successful prevention programs based on the social norms approach
have been developed and address three levels of prevention: universal, selective, and
indicated (Berkowitz, 2007). The first level of prevention, universal, uses social
norms marketing campaigns that employ social marketing techniques to deliver
messages about social norms (Berkowitz, 2007). The second level is selective, which
uses social norms interventions to focus on members of a particular group, such as
fraternity members or athletes, and is often provided in small interactive group
discussions, workshops, or classes (Berkowitz, 2007). The third level of prevention
is indicated or individualized social norms interventions, which provides
personalized normative feedback and data as part of an individual counseling
intervention (Berkowitz, 2007).
Because abusers justify their behavior and cling to their myths, intervention
is a solid method for dealing with denial. Receiving information on what is normal in
the context of group interviews allows for change in a way that is palatable and non-
condemnatory (Berkowitz, 2004). The social norms approach is a structure on which
to build interventions that affect society at large, as well as potential perpetrators, in
a “synergy” that positively effects change by reinforcing positive information that is
delivered in myriad ways to participants. This model merges the new awareness of
how relevant the environment is in preventing sexual assault, how peers play an
enormous role regarding perceptions and reactions, how interventions must be
adapted to fit their audience, and how creating environments that encourage
proactive behavior alters the outcome of potential sexual assault.

50
Delivery. One example of a prevention program that is based on the social
norm approach is the workshop designed by Berkowitz in 1987, the Rape Prevention
Program for Men (RPPM). RPPM is single gender and conducted in small groups by
trained peer facilitators, with a focus on discussion and interaction. The workshop is
designed to address openly men’s uneasiness with the sexually aggressive behavior
of some men, so that the participants can better deal with and counteract that
behavior. The workshop also provides guidelines for obtaining consent for sexual
intimacy and encourages men to share their thoughts on fears of finger pointing,
dealing with sexual situations that men night find ambiguous, and increasing
empathy for victims. The workshop also creates scenarios that depict male and
female interaction in an intimate situation, the unease that men might have with the
way other men talk about sex, and peer pressure to perform sexually.
The RPPM workshop begins with a warm-up exercise that encourages the
sharing of thoughts and feelings about rape prevention, which functions to reduce
men’s sense of isolation. This is followed by an introduction of the facilitators and an
overview of the workshop. The facilitators then provide factual information such as
the definition of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and statistics about their
incidence in college. Next, the participants watch the video, which is followed by a
discussion that focuses on the difference between “yes” and “no” in a potential
sexual encounter, the ways that men influence one another to engage in sexual
activity, and empathy for the experience of women who have been assaulted. After
the discussion, the workshop offers an optional replaying of the video. Finally, the

51
workshop ends with a summary of relevant college policies and an evaluation of the
program (Berkowitz, 1994).
Assessment. The pre- and post-workshop questionnaires used to assess
attitudes toward rape and toward women are adapted from the Attitudes Towards
Rape Scale (ATRS) and the Attitudes Towards Women Scale (ATWS). The ATRS
gauges attitudes toward rape by asking the respondent to agree or disagree with a
variety of assertions regarding rape and sexual assault (Barnett & Field, as cited
Berkowitz, 1994). The ATWS examines perceptions of women in numerous areas,
including their jobs, education, intellect, independence, dating practices, and
propriety. The pre-test was conducted two weeks before the workshop and the post-
test was administered immediately following the workshop. The result of the pre-
and post-test analysis suggests that the social norms approach is effective in
changing men’s attitudes (Berkowitz, 1994).
The social norms approach has been highly successful in correcting
misunderstandings of what is and is not acceptable behavior. Its success is
documented in research and in university interventions (Agostinelli, Brown &
Miller, 1995; Berkowitz, 2004; Cunninghan, Wild, Bondy & Lin., 2001; Fabiano,
2003; Haines, 1996; Johannesen et al., 1999; Larimer & Cronce, 2002; Linkenbach,
2003; Perkins & Craig, 2002). The social norms approach has documented
successful behavioral changes in other college and high school programs such as
those that are designed to reduce health risk behaviors (Berkowitz, 2007). Social
norms interventions also can correct misperceptions about sexual assault and reduce

52
misperceptions associated with the willingness to intervene, which increases
bystander willingness to prevent sexual assault (Berkowitz, 2007). The approach is
touted as an outstanding model of how to create, apply, and examine interventions
that combine theory and research to counteract unhealthful life choices (Berkowitz,
2004).
Discussion of the Three Men-Only Prevention Programs
In general, the outcome literature on these three men-only prevention
programs suggests that prevention programs can be effective in producing desirable
changes in attitudes and behaviors (Breitenbecher, 2000). Unfortunately, these three
programs possess limitations that restrict their potential for informing generalized
conclusions regarding effectiveness. One such limitation is that the reviews of the
programs are derived from reports of rape prevention assessment that were published
in scientific journals, which can be biased because the researchers are less inclined to
publish results that are unfavorable (Breitenbecher, 2000). Although it is important
for an effective program to acknowledge the contribution of other programs and to
identify the success of the contributing elements in each program, it is also important
to learn from failures. Sometimes knowing what does not work is as effective as
knowing what does.
Most prevention programs offer great promise in reaching the potential of
rape prevention. However, our knowledge of how to prevent rape is still in its
infancy; none of the rape prevention research has comprehensively identified the
factors that are either necessary or sufficient to change permanently the attitudes and

53
behaviors of males in the audience (Breitenbecher, 2000). While having prevention
programs focus on men has been proven to be an effective method to deliver
prevention, there are many unresolved issues in most men only-prevention programs.
Like many other programs in an academic environment, they are presented in too
short a time period and happen only once (Sundt et al, 2008) One example is
Berkowitz’s the social norms approach which is a one-time, peer facilitated,
interactive, discussion-oriented workshop. As Schaeffer and Nelson (1993) stated,
“A more effective means of education might be found in extended programs that
explore sexual coercion in depth; it may not be reasonable to expect attitudes that
have developed over many years to be changed by a few hours of education” (p.
178). Thus, there is a valid argument that one-shot programs, in and of themselves,
are not enough without the addition of reinforcements (Earle, 1996), which is an
important consideration.
In addition, prevention programs on college campuses often conduct the
assessment of self-reported attitude and behavioral change right after the workshop,
generally within a few weeks or months after the workshop was presented. For
example, Foubert (2000a; 2000b; 2005) claims that The Men’s Program is effective
in the reduction in men’s self-reported intent of raping after a 7-month follow-up, but
Berkowitz (2001) questioned the sufficiency of this evidence. One program that uses
the bystander approach conducts the post-test approximately two weeks after the
completion of the training (Ward, n.d.). Based on these short follow-up periods,
these programs often claim effectiveness in changing attitudes and behaviors in the

54
long term. However, very little research has examined the long-term effects, for
example, over a one-year period, on changes in attitudes and behaviors among the
participants. Moreover, very few investigations have included incidence of sexual
assault as an outcome variable (Breitenbecher, 2000). Based on these considerations,
it is critical to question the validity of the actual effectiveness of these programs.
Additionally, there have been many problems in the analysis of the programs,
both in theory and methodology: measures of attitude can be unconvincing,
participants revert to earlier patterns after a certain period of time, and it is difficult
to identify which elements are the most important for achieving lasting effects.
Finally, the designs and the studies of most men-only prevention programs often
target predominately the white male student population and focus on the “high risk
of perpetration of sexual assault” groups such as fraternity members and male
student athletes (Chandler, Dewayne & Carroll, 1999; Larimer, Lydum, Anderson &
Turner, 1999), as research suggests that both populations have attitudes that are more
supportive of rape as compared to other populations of college men (Boeringer,
1999). However, there is very little research on sexual assault prevention programs
that were conducted and evaluated for a diverse male student population (Sundt et al,
2008). The following section includes a presentation of the prevention program,
including its philosophy and content, which is the focus of this research.
Men CARE
The prevention program, Men CARE is a study that is different from other
prevention programs in many ways. Men CARE was based on comprehensive

55
strategies that focus on prevention by directing information towards potential
perpetrators (Sundt et al, 2008). The project combined the two leading research-
based best practices, including multiple peer-based, men-only workshops that focus
on how men can reduce sexual assault, and through social norms campaigns
(Brecklin & Forde, 2001). By combining those two strategies, Men CARE aspires to
produce greater gains in attitude change than did mixed groups and reinforce the
long-term effects (Sundt et al, 2008).
The program first established a group of 20 observable male mentors on
campus, comprised of students, administrators, and faculty, who collaborated to
reduce violence against women (Sundt et al, 2008). The student leaders were
nominated by faculty, staff and other students, and invited by the male mentors.
They worked together with the mentors to create the program by using components
that research has found to be significant in providing positive outcomes, such as
setting up the workshop and working together to figure out the proper time length for
the workshop. Then, in teams of four, along with outside advisors, they delivered
workshops for male students in pre-formed male student communities such as those
of athletic teams, fraternities and residence hall floors. These leaders initiated the
workshops that focus on: (a) delineating the issue of men’s violence against women
and how men can be part of the solution, emphasizing the positive roles men can
play; (b) addressing the issue of being a bystander when violence is imminent,
especially sexual violence, and techniques for men to intervene if a situation arises,
as well as to contest myths that support rape; and (c) integrating the social norms

56
data so that misperceptions can be corrected, empowering men to behave according
to legitimate standards in behavior and to play a part in reducing sexual assault
(Sundt et al, 2008). Additionally the teams and mentors, along with Dr. Alan
Berkowitz, put together a campaign using posters on campus in order to emphasize
important information regarding sexual violence (Sundt et al, 2008).
The developers of the project chose to make the mentoring team and the
trainers all male and peer based for several reasons. First, as noted in Chapter 1, it is
important to conduct prevention programs in separate gender groups because what
women need to hear is different from what men need to hear. Information has to be
adapted to the participant to avoid the danger of inconsistent messages when both
groups are combined (Berkowitz, 2001; Schewe, 2000; Yeater & O’Donohue, 1999).
A number of studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of focusing on men and
their role in diminishing sexual assault; thus the program that this study examines
was a single-gender program that specifically targeted men. Second, Berkowitz
(2001) has shown that when factors such as the age of the participants, their
communities, cultures, and socioeconomic classes are incorporated into the program,
they facilitated the process because the participants respond better to their peers and
to the group (Berkowitz, 2001; Foubert, 2000; Foubert & La Voy, 2000; Foubert &
Marriott, 1997; Foubert & McEwen, 1998). Often, participants respond better to their
peers in these environments because the presentations are more pertinent and
palatable to the students at the campus; thus, peer-run programs are deemed the most
advantageous (Berkowitz, 2001).

57
Additionally, this group of male mentors initiated a social norms movement
to highlight constructive and affirmative behavior in men (Sundt et al, 2008). In
response to the evaluation problems in the past studies, this project’s analysis
targeted the process and the outcome-based performance measures, which
considered the adjustments in attitudes and behavior both before and after the
programs, as well as reports of rape (Sundt et al, 2008).
Moreover, the evaluation of the project was also different from other
evaluations. As mentioned earlier, there were issues with past violence prevention
programs because the theory and methods used for evaluation were problematic, and
incorporation of “attitudinal measures of change” was weak (Sundt et al, 2008).
Fortunately, as more and more colleges and universities become aware that sexual
violence is a major problem, the evaluation of the prevention programs will become
more common. Thus, it benefits Men CARE to learn what did not work. Moreover,
the evaluation of this project, which involved outcome-based performance,
concerned changes in attitudes and behaviors. They were assessed by surveys before
and after the program, as well as by accounts of the occurrence of sexual violence on
campus during the period of the program.
Earle (1996), when studying three types of delivery systems, found that such
short and limited programs had no consequences in affecting attitude or behavior
unless there were other factors on campus to reinforce the information. Men CARE
is unlike other educational efforts that were brief and occurred only once. This
project takes the college campus prevention program a step further. The program

58
provided two workshops with a diverse male student population and a one-year
follow-up post-test that very few other studies have looked at. As such, the propose
of this project is to examine the Men CARE program results in association with
men’s attitudes and behavior in regard to combating violence against women.

59
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
As much as college and university administrators want their campuses to be
safe, women students are at high risk for sexual assault (Banyard et al, 2005). To
prevent continued violence against women, there must be an emphasis on uncovering
the potential perpetrator and then educating him to recognize and eliminate
unacceptable behavior. Thus, the purpose of the study was to examine the impact of
a men-only violence prevention program, Men Creating Attitudes for Rape-free
Environments (Men CARE) at a private research university, on the attitudes and self-
reported behavior of the participants. To this end, this chapter presents the research
questions and a description of the research methodology, including the sampling
procedure and population, instrumentation, and procedures for data collection and
analysis.
Research Questions
The first part of this study concerned the changes in college men’s attitudes
about and self-reported behavior toward women before and after attending the sexual
violence prevention workshop. In addition, the second part of this study looked at the
differences in college men’s attitudes and self-reported behavior between two
cohorts. Four specific research questions were developed to guide this study:
1. What is the association, if any, between college men’s participation in a
workshop on preventing sexual violence, and their attitudes about toward
women?

60
a. To what extent does the association vary, based on student
affiliations?
b. To what extent does the association vary by student ethnicity?
2. What is the association, if any, between college men’s participation in a
workshop on preventing sexual violence, and their self-reported behaviors
toward women?
a. To what extent does the association vary, based on student
affiliations?
b. To what extent does the association vary by student ethnicity?
3. To what extent do college men’s attitudes toward women differ by
cohort?
a. To what extent does this difference, if any, vary by student
affiliations?
b. To what extent does this difference, if any, vary by student
ethnicity?
4. To what extent do college men’s self-reported behaviors toward women
differ by cohort?
a. To what extent does this difference, if any, vary by student
affiliations?
b. To what extent does this difference, if any, vary by student
ethnicity?

61
Research Design
This study used a secondary analysis of data generated from an
undergraduate men-only prevention program. Specifically, this study assessed the
impact of the prevention program, Men CARE, at a 4-year research university, with
the goal that the findings of the study would provide suggestions for the development
of effective sexual violence prevention programs that, in turn, would lead to safer
campuses.
Quantitative inquiry often asks the question “why” when comparing or
assessing the relationship among Groups (Creswell, 1997). This study was best
addressed in the quantitative method because it was driven by the nature of the
research questions, which involved the exploration of the attitude and behavioral
changes of men who did versus did not attend the men’s prevention workshop. As
such, this was descriptive research that used a non-experimental approach (McMillan
& Schumacher, 1993). Descriptive research assesses the relationship between the
independent variables, ethnicity and student affiliations, and dependent variables, the
change in attitudes and behaviors scores, using various forms of non-experimental
statistical analysis, such as descriptive statistics, and t-tests (Gall, Gall, & Borg,
2003).
The study used three independent groups: (1) male students who took the
survey in spring 2005 through fall 2006 before they participated in the workshop
(Group 1); (2) the previous group (Group 1) who took the survey and participated in
the workshop in 2005 – 2006, and completed a follow-up survey in 2007 (Group 2);

62
and (3) male students who took the survey in spring 2007 and have not yet
participated in the workshop (Group 3). A list of the groups is summarized in Table
2. The rationale for using three groups was to be able to set up three pairs of Groups,
between pre-workshop and post-workshop groups (Groups 1 and 2, Groups 3 and 2,
and Groups 1 and 3) in order to compare the changes in attitude and behavior
measures.

Table 2. List of the Groups

Group
Name

Description
Group 1 2006 Pre-
workshop
Male students who took the survey test before attending
the Men CARE workshop in spring 2005 through fall
2006.
Group 2 2006 Post-
workshop
Male students (Group 1) who had participated in the
Men CARE workshop in 2005-2006 who completed a
follow up survey test spring 2007.
Group 3 2007 Pre-
workshop
Male students who took the survey test spring 2007 and
did not attend the Men CARE workshop.

The dependent variables were scores on attitude and behavior measures. The
attitude measures referred to survey questions 18 – 21. The behavior measure
referred to the survey questions, 17 and 23 to 33. The independent variables were
student affiliation (being a member of a fraternity, intercollegiate athletic team, or
neither), and ethnicity (White and non-White). The student affiliation referred to
question 4 in the survey and ethnicity was question 3.

63
There were three steps in the analysis. The first step was to conduct an
exploratory data analysis and compute a series of descriptive statistics, which
included frequencies, means and chi-square tests. The chi-square tests were used to
compare the proportions of student affiliations and ethnicities that occur in each of
the Groups. Then, each research question was analyzed and t-tests were conducted
between the Groups to assess if there was a change in score in the dependent
variables (attitudes and behaviors).
Population and Sample
The data for this study were from the Men CARE program. The participants
in the project were drawn from the male undergraduate students who enrolled in the
school while the survey was being conducted. The purpose of the study was to
determine the association of the workshop in preventing college men’s violence
toward women and, specifically, to understand how participating in the workshop
affected male students’ beliefs about violence against women, as well as their self-
reported behaviors (Sundt et al, 2008).
The study collected the data from two different time periods. The first set of
data was collected in spring 2005 through fall 2006; the second and third sets were
collected in spring 2007. During the first data collection period, approximately 1,000
male undergraduate students were invited to participate (Sundt et al., 2008). A total
of 707 students completed the survey in spring 2005 through fall 2006 (Group 1). In
2007, the same surveys were administered to two groups of students (Group 2 and
Group 3). The first group consisted of those who participated in the 2005-2006 pre-

64
workshop survey, then attended the workshop, and one year later took the post-
workshop survey (group 2), and the second group consisted of male students who
had not yet attended the workshop and took the survey (group 3). There was a total
of 95 students who completed the post-workshop surveys in 2007 (group 2) and a
total of 96 students who completed the pre-workshop surveys in 2007 (group 3). In
addition, the sample size of Group 1 was very different from Groups 2 and 3;
therefore, not all three Groups had the same proportion of numbers of students in
each student group affiliation and ethnicity. Consequently, the results might be
skewed toward certain populations.
A breakdown of the demographic information among all three Groups is
summarized in Table 3.
Among all participants of the 901 surveys entered into the analysis, 639
(70.9%) students were White, 56 (6.2%) African American, 54 (6.0%) Asian/Asian
American, 49 (5.4%) Latino/Spanish speaking, 7 (0.8%) Native American, 6 (0.7%)
Filipino American, 49 (5.4%) multi-racial, and 32 (3.6%) “Others.”
Furthermore, among all the respondents, many were members of a fraternity
(N=572, 63.7%). About 33.7% (N=303) of the participants joined an intercollegiate
athletic team, 24.3% (N=218) joined other registered student organizations, and
19.7% (N=177) joined an intramural athletic team. Table 4 lists the breakdown of
each student affiliation for all three Groups.

65
Table 3. Ethnicity

Total
N White/Caucasian
African American
Asian
Latino/
Other Spanish - Speaking
Native American
Filipino American
Multi-Racial
Other
Group 1 707
74.2%
520
4.1%
29
6.0%
42
5.4%
38
0.6%
4
0.6%
4
5.8%
41
3.3%
23
Group 2 95
67.0%
63
12.8%
12
4.3%
4
6.4%
6
2.1%
2
6.4%
6
0.0%
-
1.1%
1
Group 3 96
58.3%
56
15.6%
15
8.3%
8
5.2%
5
0.0%
-
2.1%
2
2.1%
2
8.3%
8
USC 2007 Data 16,384
47.0%
7,706
5.6%
913
21.7%
3,552
13.1%
2,150
0.8%
127
0.0%
-
0.0%
-
2.8%
455

Table 4. Students’ Affiliations

Total
N Fraternity
Intercollegiate
athletic team
Intramural
athletic team
Other
Registered
student
organization
Group 1 707
74.3%
525
22.8%
161
23.3%
165
26.7%
188
Group 2 95
34.7%
33
72.6%
69
8.4%
8
20.0%
19
Group 3 96
14.6%
14
76.0%
73
4.2%
4
11.5%
11
*Note: There were participants who joined more than one student affiliation.

66
Instrumentation
Because this study was based on a secondary analysis, the reliability and
validity of the instrument have been tested. To ensure that the questions produced
credible information, the content and structure of the survey was adapted from three
previously measured and tested tools, the College Date Rape Attitude and Behavior
Survey-Modified (CDRAMBS-M; Lanier & Elliots, 1997), the Rape Myth
Acceptance Scale (RMAS; Burt, 1980), and the Attitudes Towards Woman Scale
(ATWS; Spence & Helmreich, 1972). Items from these three measures were used to
create the survey to study men’s experiences in the prevention program. The
following section describes the specifics and reliability of each measure.
CDRABS-M, which measured students’ attitudes about sexual violence and
current behaviors, contained 27 items answered on a 5-point Likert scale. The
research of Shultz, Sherman, and Marshall (as cited in Sundt et al., 2008), which was
partly replicated in this study, has shown this measure to be highly reliable
(Cronbach’s alpha for attitudes and behavior were 0.94 and 0.89, respectively). The
RMAS consisted of 16 items, answered on a 5-point Likert scale, with a Cronbach’s
alpha for the scale of 0.88 (Shultz et al., as cited in Sundt et al., 2008). Finally, the
ATWS, which measured agreement with statements about traditional sex roles for
women, was assessed by Earle and Harris (as cited in Sundt et al., 2008) and has
been validated in numerous studies of college men’s violence against women. The
survey was the result of a shortened version of the combined three measures

67
described above (Sundt et al. 2008) in which duplication was eliminated.
Demographic questions were added to the survey as well.
The instrument for this study contained a 37-multisection-item survey that
used a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree to 7 = strongly disagree). It contained
questions about student demographics, knowledge about facts of sexual violence,
and attitudes about women and behavior (Sundt et al., 2008; Appendix A). Section 1
of the survey consisted of questions about demographic characteristics, including the
participant’s age, years at the institution, ethnicity, groups to which he belonged, and
numbers of siblings. Section 2 concerned the participants’ knowledge of sexual
violence, with items such as “Approximately what percentage of sexual assaults
reported to the police do you think involve acquaintances (two people who know
each other)?” and “How often do you think drugs and/or alcohol are involved in
sexual assaults involving acquaintances?” Section 3 concerned the participants’
attitudes about women and behavior. Sample attitude questions included “I need to
ask for my partner’s consent for sex every time I want it” and “The degree of a
woman’s resistance should be a major force in determining if rape has occurred.”
Sample questions for behavior included “I stop sexual activity when asked, even if I
am already sexually aroused” and “When I hear a negative sexual comment about
women, I speak up and object.”
Two subscales, a 4 item composite behavior subscale and a 12 item
composite attitude subscale, were created for this study. Internal consistency for the
two subscales was measured. The Cornbach alpha was the degree to which the items

68
that made up the scale were all measuring the same underlying attribute. The
Cronbach alpha test for the internal reliability of the survey instrument was
conducted on the 4 items comprising the behavior subscale and the 12 items
comprising the attitude subscales. Ideally, the Cronbach alpha coefficient of a scale
should be above 0.7 (Devellis, 2003). In this study, the Cronbach alpha coefficient
for the composite of the 4 items of the subscale Behavior was 0.66, making it a
questionable measure. However, the Cronbach alpha coefficient for the composite of
the 12 items of the Attitude subscale was 0.81, making it a reliable measure. Table 5
shows the results of the Cronbach alpha analysis.

Table 5. Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficients for the Two Composite Scales

Scales
Cronbach Alpha
Coefficient N
Composite Behavior 0.66 4
Composite Attitude 0.81 12

Data Collection
Men CARE went into the residential halls and invited participants to
complete an anonymous survey before they attended any workshop (Sundt et al.,
2008). Then, after collecting the pre-test survey from the participants, Men CARE
presented these workshops to formal and informal men’s groups, such as fraternities
and athletic teams, and attendance was mandatory at some of the workshops (Sundt

69
et al., 2008). However, the survey participation was voluntary, and the participation
rate for the first group, which occurred from spring 2005 to fall 2006, was 71%.
Limitations of the Study
The limitations of the study dealt with the sample, survey and data collection.
First as discussed in Chapter 1, the limitations included the intentional focus solely
on fraternities, athletic teams, or other registered student organizations. The response
rate of the study may have been affected by the characteristics of a particular
population. The sample was limited to subjects who participated voluntarily. Other
limitations of this study were the result of the actual data collection. The data was
not able to match for the pre and post test. Therefore, the study did not establish the
change in scores for the same participants, and thus, was unable to identify which
specific impact had the most effect on certain groups.
The self-selection of the participants was problematic for this research as
well. Since all the participants were invited and participated voluntarily in the
workshop, it is very likely that they came into the workshop with attitudes that are
more likely to change than those who decided not to participate in the workshop.
This factor could have created a biased sample, which makes it more difficult to
determine causation. Therefore, self-selection causes problems in evaluating the
program and difficulty in determining the actual workshop effect.
With regard to the survey, the bias for self-reporting was a limiting factor.
Often a self-report survey may provide positively biased responses about the session
on socially sensitive or controversial topics. This occurs if participants respond to

70
items in a more socially appealing manner; thus the validity of the data might be
compromised by response bias. Although the survey was designed to avoid
threatening questions that might elicit a socially desirable but inaccurate response,
the validity of self-reported data is always suspect because of the possibility of
response bias (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002).
In addition, the sample size of Group 1 was very different from Groups 2 and
3. Moreover, the data were heavily populated with respondents who were
White/Caucasian and were affiliated with fraternities and intercollegiate or
intramural athletic teams; therefore, each student group affiliation and ethnicity is
not proportionally distributed. Additionally, not all three Groups had the same
proportion of numbers of students in each student group affiliation and ethnicity.
Consequently, the results might be skewed toward certain populations.
Finally, during the time period of the Men CARE project, the campus had
undergone a social norms campaign. Both processes overlapped over one year. Thus,
it is not possible to isolate the data from the effect of the workshop versus the effect
from the social norms campaign. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the actual
workshop effect from that of the social norms campaign.
Data Analysis
The analysis was divided into many parts. Before the analysis was conducted,
the data were composed from three groups, pre-workshop 2006 (Group 1), post-
workshop 2006 (Group 2), and pre-workshop 2007 (Group 3). The descriptive
statistics such as frequency distributions, group means, percentages, and standard

71
deviations for each comparison group listed above were computed. A frequency
distribution analysis and group mean were conducted to account for the size of the
numbers of participants. The chi-square tests were used to determine the differences
in the proportions of represented ethnicity and the student affiliations.
An independent-samples t-test was used to compare the mean score for two
different groups of subjects. Thus, for the purpose of this study, the t-tests were used
to determine the association, either by the intervention or the cohort, on attitudes and
behaviors between the groups, across student affiliation and ethnicity. Therefore t-
tests were performed to compare the mean scores of attitudes and behaviors between
the pre-workshop 2006 group (Group 1) and the post-workshop 2006 group (Group
2), between the pre-workshop 2007 group (Group 3) and the post-workshop 2006
group (Group 2) and the pre-workshop 2006 group (Group 1) and the pre-workshop
group (Group 3). To test the association on intervention between Groups, t-test
analysis was performed on Groups 1 and 2. To test the cohort differences between
Groups, t-test analysis was performed on Groups 3 and 2, and Groups 1 and 3.
The analysis is summarized in Table 6. Statistical analysis was performed
using the SPSS, Version 14.0 software. The results and presentation of the data
analysis, including demographic data and the data for each research question will be
presented in the next chapter.

72
Table 6. Summary of the Statistical Analysis

Groups Independent Variables Tests Dependent Variables
• The pre-workshop 2006
group and the post-
workshop 2006 group
Groups Chi-
square
• All four student
affiliations . Item: 5.
• The pre-workshop 2007
group and the post-
workshop 2006 group.
Groups Chi-
square
• All four student
affiliations . Item: 5.
• The pre-workshop 2006
group and the pre-
workshop 2007 group
Groups Chi-
square
• All four student
affiliations . Item: 5.
• The pre-workshop 2006
group and the post-
workshop 2006 group
Ethnicity Chi-
square
• White vs. Non-
white.
• The pre-workshop 2007
group and the post-
workshop 2006 group.
Ethnicity Chi-
square
• White vs. Non-
white.
• The pre-workshop 2006
group and the pre-
workshop 2007 group
Ethnicity Chi-
square
• White vs. Non-
white.
• The pre-workshop 2006
group and the post-
workshop 2006 group
The association of intervention
immediately after the workshop,
specifically on men’s behavior toward
women.
t-test • Behavior items: 18-
21.
• The pre-workshop 2006
group and the pre-
workshop 2007 group
The association of intervention
immediately after the workshop,
specifically on men’s behavior toward
women.
t-test • Behavior items: 18-
21.
• The pre-workshop 2006
group and the post-
workshop 2006 group
The association of intervention
immediately after the workshop,
specifically on men’s behavior toward
women.
t-test • Behavior items: 18-
21.
• The pre-workshop 2006
group and the post-
workshop 2006 group
The association of intervention one year
after the workshop, specifically on men’s
attitude toward women
t-test • Composite attitude,
questions 17 and 23-
37.
• The pre-workshop 2006
group and the pre-
workshop 2007 group
The association of intervention one year
after the workshop, specifically on men’s
attitude toward women
t-test • Composite attitude,
questions 17 and 23-
37.
• The pre-workshop 2006
group and the post-
workshop 2006 group
The association of intervention one year
after the workshop, specifically on men’s
attitude toward women
t-test • Composite attitude,
questions 17 and 23-
37.

73
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This study employed a non-experimental research design to answer four
research questions:
1. What is the association, if any, between college men’s participation in a
workshop on preventing sexual violence, and their attitudes about toward
women?
a. To what extent does the association vary, based on student
affiliations?
b. To what extent does the association vary by student ethnicity?
2. What is the association, if any, between college men’s participation in a
workshop on preventing sexual violence, and their self-reported behaviors
toward women?
a. To what extent does the association vary, based on student
affiliations?
b. To what extent does the association vary by student ethnicity?
3. To what extent do college men’s attitudes toward women differ by
cohort?
a. To what extent does this difference, if any, vary by student
affiliations?
b. To what extent does this difference, if any, vary by student
ethnicity?

74
4. To what extent do college men’s self-reported behaviors toward women
differ by cohort?
a. To what extent does this difference, if any, vary by student
affiliations?
b. To what extent does this difference, if any, vary by student
ethnicity?
Descriptive Statistics
Group Demographics
Descriptive analysis on ethnicity. Among the 707 valid responses in Group
1, 520 (74.2%) students were White, 29 (4.1%) African American, 42 (6.0%)
Asian/Asian American, 38 (5.4%) Latino/Spanish speaking, 4 (0.6%) Native
American, 4 (0.6%) Filipino American, 41 (5.8%) multi-racial, 23 (3.3%) “Other”
and 6 students did not respond to the questions.
Among the 95 valid responses in Group 2, 63 (67.0%) students were White,
12 (12.8%) African American, 4 (4.3%) Asian/Asian American, 6 (6.4%)
Latino/Spanish speaking, 2 (2.1%) Native American, 6 (6.4%) multi-racial, 1 (1.1%)
“Other,” and one student did not respond to the question. Among the 96 valid
responses in Group 3, 56 (58.3%) were White, 15 (15.6%) were African American, 8
(8.3%) were Asian/Asian American, 5 (5.2%) were Latino/Spanish Speaking, 2
(2.1%) were Filipino American, 2 (2.1%) were multi-racial, and 8 (8.3%) indicated
“Others.” Table 7 shows the demographic information among all three groups.

75
Descriptive analysis was performed to compare the data demographics of the
sample population with 2007 USC undergraduate enrollment characteristics overall,
a breakdown of which is displayed in Table 7. In comparison with the USC fall 2007
data, the sample population among the three groups did not appear to represent the
USC student ethnicity. In comparison with Group 1 and the USC data, the results
showed that White/Caucasian participants appeared to be in greater proportion in
Group 1, and Asians and Latino/Other Spanish Speaking appeared to be in smaller
proportion in Group 1. In Groups 2 and 3, both White/Caucasian and African
Americans populations appeared to be in greater proportion, and Asians and
Latino/Other Spanish Speaking appeared to be in smaller proportion. Thus, the
samples in all three Groups might not be the correct ethnic representation of the
entire campus.
Because the majority of respondents were overwhelmingly White/Caucasian,
the variable Ethnicity was dichotomized to create a White/Caucasian group and an
Other group, representing respondents of an ethnicity other than White/Caucasian to
avoid a type I error. Table 8 shows the sample distribution using these collapsed
categories.

76

Table 7. Ethnicity Table

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 USC Data
White/Caucasian 74.2%
1,520
67.0%
63
58.3%
56
47.0%
7,706
African American 4.1%
29
12.8%
12
15.6%
15
5.6%
913
Asian 6.0%
42
4.3%
4
8.3%
8
21.7%
3,552
Latino/Other Spanish Speaking 5.4%
38
6.4%
6
5.2%
5
13.1%
2,150
Native American 0.6%
4
2.1%
2
-
-
0.8%
127
Filipino American 0.6%
4
-
-
2.1%
2
-
-
Multi-racial 5.8%
41
6.4%
6
2.1%
2

Other 3.3%
23
1.1%
1
8.3%
8
2.8%
455

Table 8. Ethnicity Distribution in each Group

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
White/Caucasian 520
(74.2%)
63
(67.0%)
56
(58.3%)
Other Race 181
(25.8%)
31
(32.3%)
40
(41.7%)

77
Chi-square analysis - ethnicity. To compare the observed frequencies of
ethnicity that occurred in each of the Groups, the cross tabulation table and chi-
square tests were conducted. I checked the distribution of ethnicities within the
sample between the 2 pairs Groups 1 and 2 and Groups 3 and 2 and found overall no
significant differences. This suggested the presence of the same proportion of
White/Caucasian participants and all Other race participants between Groups 1 and
2, and between Groups 3 and 2.
A chi-square test for independence indicated a significant difference in the
proportion of White/Caucasian and Other races in Groups 1 and 3, χ2 (1, n=797) =
9.80, p=0.00. This suggested a different proportion of White/Caucasian participants
and other race participants in Groups 1 and 3. This subgroup reflected the differences
in student population between Groups 1 and 3. The differences among the ethnicity
subgroup affected the findings later on.
Student Affiliations
Descriptive analysis on student affiliations. In the survey, students were
asked about their affiliation with four dominant campus groups, groups that were
also targets for workshop participation: fraternities, intercollegiate athletic teams,
intramural athletic teams and Other registered student organizations. Many
participants in Group 1 were members of a fraternity (N=525, 74.3%). About 26.7%
of the participants in Group 1 joined an Other registered student organization, 23.3%
joined an intramural athletic team, and 22.8% joined an intercollegiate team. Of the
participants in Group 2, 72.6% joined an intercollegiate athletic team, 34.7% of

78
participants in Group 2 were members of a fraternity, 20.0% were members of an
Other registered student organization, and only 8.4% of the participants in Group 2
identified themselves as a member of an intramural athletic team. Finally, in Group
3, 76.0% of the participants were members of an intercollegiate athletic team, 14.6%
joined a fraternity, 11.5% joined an Other registered student organization, and only
4.2% joined an intramural athletic team. The descriptive analysis presented in Table
9 shows that Group 1 had a high proportion of participants who joined fraternities. A
high proportion of participants who joined intercollegiate athletic teams in both
Groups 2 and 3 were present. The results are outlined in Table 9. Because the
proportion of student affiliation appeared unequally distributed, the chi-square test
for independence was used to determine whether the distribution was the same as
among all three Groups.

79
Table 9. Summary of All Four Student Affiliations Distribution

Group 1
(Total N=706)
Group 2
(Total N=95)
Group 3
(Total N=96)
Fraternity 74.4% 34.7% 14.6%
N 525 33 14
Intercollegiate athletic team 22.8% 72.6% 76.0%
N 161 69 73
Intramural athletic team 23.4% 8.4% 4.2%
N 165 8 4
Other registered student
organization
26.6% 20.0% 11.5%
N 188 19 11
Note: The total valid response rates do not equal to 100% for each Group because students could
belong to more than one student affiliation.

Chi-square analysis – student affiliations. Groups 1 and 2. A chi-square test
for independence was conducted for Groups 1 and 2 showing that Group 1 had
higher proportions than Group 2 in three of the student affiliations: fraternity,
intercollegiate athletic teams, and intramural athletic teams. No significant difference
could be found between participants who were members of Other registered student
organization in Groups 1 and 2. The results are outlined in Table 10 below.

80
Table 10. Chi-square Analysis Between Groups 1 and 2 and Each Student Affiliation

Fraternity
Intercollegiate
athletic team
Intramural
athletic team
Other
registered
student
organization
Chi-Square 60.35 99.14 10.19 1.59
df 1 1 1 1
Asymp. Sig. 0.00* 0.00* 0.00* 0.21
Note: (*) the result was statistically significant.

Groups 3 and 2. The same analysis was conducted between Groups 3 and 2.
A chi-square test for independence indicated a significant difference in the
proportion of participants who joined fraternities and those who did not join
fraternities in Groups 3 and 2, χ2 (1, n=191) = 9.40, p=0.00. More fraternity
members existed in Group 2 than in Group 3.
No significant difference could be found between participants who were
members of an intercollegiate athletic team in Groups 3 and 2, neither for intramural
athletic teams nor for those who were the members of Other registered student
organizations.
Groups 1 and 3. A chi-square test for independence was conducted for
Groups 1 and 3 showing that Group 1 had higher proportions than Group 3 in all four
of the student affiliations: fraternity, intercollegiate athletic teams, intramural athletic
teams, and Other registered student organizations. The results are outlined in Table
11 below. In summary, it was not surprising to see the differences in the composition

81
of the student affiliations since Group 1 was mostly fraternities, and Groups 2 and 3
were mostly athletes. The differences impacted the findings later on.

Table 11. Chi-square Analysis Between Groups 1 and 3 and Each Student Affiliation

Fraternity
Intercollegiate
athletic team
Intramural
athletic team
Other
registered
student
organization
Chi-Square 134.33 113.35 17.60 9.63
df 1 1 1 1
Asymp. Sig. 0.00* 0.00* 0.00* 0.02*
Note: (*) the result was statistically significant

Findings for Research Question One
Research Question 1: All Participants
Research question one looked at how participants’ attitudes about women
varied one year after the participants attended the workshop. To examine the
association of the intervention over one year on college men’s attitudes about
women, all participants’ data from Groups 1 and 2 were looked at and independent
sample t-tests were conducted. Out of 13 items, only one variable, Women Often Lie
About Being Raped to Get Back at Their Dates (DateRap_1), showed a significant
difference between Group 1(M=3.84, SD=1.65) and Group 2 (M=3.43, SD=1.61),
t(516)=2.20, p=0.03. The result was positive. The participants in Group 2 (Post 06)

82
had a lower mean score than those of Group 1 (Pre 06) in the Women Often Lie
About Being Raped to Get Back at Their Dates (DateRap_1) variable. This outcome
showed that the participants in Group 2 (Post 06) came to have a clearer
understanding of the fact that women don’t lie about being raped to get back at their
dates.
Research Question 1a: By Student Affiliations
The first part of research question one asked how changes in attitudes varied
by four student affiliations, specifically, data from fraternities, intercollegiate athletic
teams, intramural athletic teams, and Other registered student organizations from
Groups 1 and 2 were examined. First, to compare the attitudes scores for Groups 1
(Pre-workshop 2006) and 2 (Post-workshop 2006) and specifically those who joined
fraternities, independent t-tests were conducted. The results suggested no significant
difference in all attitude scores for Groups 1 and 2 among those who joined
fraternities. I next looked at the difference in mean scores for Groups 1 and 2 and
those who joined an intercollegiate athletic team and also found no significant
difference in all individual attitudes variables. Similarly, I compared Group 1 and 2
mean attitude scores among those who joined an intramural athletic team, and again
no significant difference was present. The results are outlined in Table 12 below.
Finally, I compared mean scores for Group 1 and 2 and for members of Other
registered student organizations. For this student affiliation, five variables,
Composite Attitude, Need to Ask For Partner’s Consent for Sex (AskForCnset),
Women Often Lie About Being Raped to Get Back at Their Dates (DateRape_1), In

83
Most Cases When a Woman was Raped She was Asking For It (WomanAsk_1), and
Entitlement to Intercourse Even If Partner Changes Her Mind (ManEntit_1), showed
significant differences. Table 10 displays the t-test results on the five attitudes
variables. Thus, after the workshop, the members of Other registered student
organizations in Group 2’s scores on those five variables showed a significantly
stronger understanding of the issues than the pre-workshop 2006 group (Group 1), an
auspicious outcome for this study.

Table 12. The T-test Results on Attitudes Scores for Groups 1 and 2 and the
Members of Other Registered Student Organizations

Group 1 Group 2
Mean SD Mean SD t Sig.
Composite
Attitude
Variable
2.61 0.97 2.15 0.75 t(139)= 1.99 p=0.049
AskForCnset 2.41 1.68 1.58 0.69 t(45.72)= 4.10 p=0.00
DateRape_1 3.87 1.60 3.00 1.60 t(151)= 2.11 p=0.04
WomanAsk_1 2.01 1.38 1.37 0.60 t(51.29)= 3.52 p=0.00
ManEntit_1 2.23 1.46 1.68 0.89 t(34.13)= 2.27 p=0.03

Research Question 1b: By Ethnicity
The second part of research question one looked at the attitudes scores and
whether or not their association varied by ethnicity. Independent t-tests were
conducted to compare the attitudes scores for Groups 1 and 2, specifically for
participants who were White/Caucasian. The results suggested no significant

84
difference in any attitude scores for Groups 1 and 2 among those whose ethnicity
was White/Caucasian. Similarly, the results suggested no significant difference in
any attitude scores for Groups 1 and 2 among those whose ethnicity was Non-
white/Caucasian.
Findings for Research Question Two
Research Question 2: Self-Reported Behavior on All Participants
Research question two asked about the differences in self-reported behaviors
toward woman one year after the participants attended the workshop. Of the four
behavior variables, only one variable, Speak Up and Object When Hearing a
Negative Sexual Comment (SpeakUp), showed a significant difference between
Group 1(M=4.20, SD=1.61) and Group 2 (M=3.44, SD=1.66), t(723)=4.28, p=0.00.
The participants in Group 2 were more likely than those from Group 1 to speak up
and object when they hear a negative sexual comment about women.
Research Question 2a: By Student Affiliations
I continued to look at the self-reported behaviors by checking whether or not
scores varied by different student affiliations one year after the participants attended
the workshop. In the analysis of differences in behavior items by student affiliations,
specifically among the participants who joined fraternities, intercollegiate athletic
teams, and intramural athletic teams, only one variable, Speak Up and Object When
Hearing a Negative Sexual Comment (SpeakUp), showed a significant difference.
Thus, participants who were the members of these three student affiliations in the
post-workshop 2006 (Group 2) came to a stronger awareness of the importance of

85
speaking up and objecting when they hear a negative sexual comment about women
than the participants in the pre-workshop 2006 (Group 1), which is encouraging.

Table 13. The T-test Results for the SpeakUp Variable Among Student Affiliations

Group 1 Group 2
Mean SD Mean SD t Sig.
SpeakUp
(Fraternities)
4.27 1.60 3.53 1.61 t(512)=2.54 p=0.01
SpeakUp
(Athletic)
4.31 1.64 3.39 1.67 t(196)=3.73 p=0.00
SpeakUp
(Intramural)
4.21 1.49 2.71 0.76 t(158)=2.63 p=0.01

Research Question 2b: By Ethnicity
The second part of research question two compared the self-reported
behavior scores that varied by ethnicity. Among White/Caucasian, only one variable,
Speak Up and Object When Hearing a Negative Sexual Comment (SpeakUp),
showed a significant difference between Group 1(M=4.25, SD=1.60) and Group 2
(M=3.37, SD=1.67), t(540)=4.04, p=0.00. The White/Caucasian participants who
participated in the workshop came to a better awareness of the need to speak up and
object when they hear a negative sexual comment about women.
Finally, I compared the self-reported behavior mean scores for Groups 1 and
2 among those for the participants who were Non-white/Caucasian. No significant
difference existed in all behaviors scores for Groups 1 and 2.

86
Findings Research Question Three
Research questions three was used to determine the attitudes and self-
reported behaviors scores between Groups 3 (Pre-workshop 2007) and 2 (Post-
workshop 2006), and Groups 1 (Pre-workshop 2006) and 3 (Pre-workshop 2007) to
determine whether the influences were by cohort or workshop. It examined the
differences among different generations had on the attitude and self-reported
behavior variables. Specifically, the purpose of this research question was to
triangulate the results with Groups 3 and 2, and Groups 1 and 3 from Groups 1 and 2.
Therefore, the following section will examine the variables that showed significance
in Groups 1 and 2.
Research Question 3: Cohort Differences on Attitudes (All Participants)
The first pair that I looked at was Groups 3 and 2 participants’ attitudes about
women. Only one variable, Woman Often Lie About Being Raped to Get Back at
Their Dates (DateRap_1), showed a significant difference between Group 3
(M=4.06, SD=1.79) and Group 2 (M=3.43, SD=1.61), t(187)=2.56, p=0.01. The
participants who took the workshop (Group 2) had an increased consciousness of the
reality that women do not lie about being raped to get back at their dates. While the
comparison between Groups 1 and 3 suggested no significant difference for
DateRape_1, still two out of three pairs, Groups 1 and 2 and Groups 3 and 2 were
able to show the differences in score between the Pre-workshop groups and the Post-
workshop group. Therefore, we were able to conclude that the difference in scores

87
was more likely due to the workshop than the cohort, which was one of the most
significant positive findings in the study.

Table 14. Summary of the T-test Results for the Attitude Variable

Groups 1 & 2 Groups 3 & 2 Groups 1 & 3
DateRap_1
(All participants)
p<0.05 p<0.05 No significance.

Research Question 3a: By Student Affiliation
The first part of research question three asked how participants’ attitudes
about women varied by different student affiliations. This part of the research
question also acted as triangulation to the results found from research question one.
As I mentioned earlier in the chapter, I found five attitude variables that showed
significance in Groups 1 and 2, specifically for the members of Other registered
student groups: Composite Attitudes, Need to Ask For Partner’s Consent for Sex
(AskForConsent), Woman Lie About Being Raped (DateRap_1), In Most Cases
When a Woman was Raped She Was Asking For It (WomanAsk_1) and Entitlement
to Intercourse Even If Partner Changes Her Mind (ManEntit_1). These findings
were important because they showed that the workshop has the potential to change
men’s attitudes towards women.
To triangulate the results, I used independent sample t-tests to look at the
attitude scores for Groups 3 and 2 and those of the members of Other registered

88
student groups, and the results suggested no significant difference in any of the
attitude scores for Groups 3 and 2 for those men. Similar tests were conducted to
compare the same attitude scores for Groups 1 and 3 among those who were
members of Other registered affiliations. None of the attitude variables that were
significant in Groups 1 and 2 found significance in Groups 1 and 3. Although the
results from Groups 1 and 2 were promising, the results from Groups 3 and 2 and
Groups 1 and 3 conflicted with the results from Groups 1 and 2; therefore, further
research is necessary to account for these inconsistencies.

Table 15. Summary of the T-test Results for the Other Registered Student Groups

Groups 1 & 2 Groups 3 & 2 Groups 1 & 3
Composite Attitudes p <0.05 No significance No significance
AskForConsent p <0.05 No significance No significance
DateRap_1 p <0.05 No significance No significance
WomanAsk_1 p <0.05 No significance No significance
ManEntit_1 p <0.05 No significance No significance

Research Question 3b: By Ethnicity
The second part of research question three examined attitudes about women
held by Groups 3 and 2 and Groups 1 and 3 as they relate to student ethnicity. Since
no significant difference in scores on all attitudes variables by Ethnicity between
Groups 1 and 2 existed, further explanation is not needed.

89
Findings Research Question Four
Research Question 4: Cohort Differences on Self-Reported Behaviors (All
Participants)
Independent sample t-tests were conducted on the second half of research
question two to see whether responses on the self-reported behavior items differed
by cohorts or workshop. Groups 3 and 2 and Groups 1 and 3 were tested. The results
suggested no significant difference in Groups 3 and 2 among all participants.
However, the variable, Speak Up and Object When Hearing a Negative Sexual
Comment (SpeakUp), showed a significant difference between Group 1 (M=4.20,
SD=1.61) and Group 3 (M=3.75, SD=1.83), t(109.78)=-2.08, p=0.04. It suggested
there was a cohort difference. This could be problematic because in the earlier
chapter, the variable that found significance for Groups 1 and 2 was also the same
variable, SpeakUp. Although cohort differences seemed to be responsible for the
disparity in scores for the SpeakUp variable, the workshop may have had an
influence as well. Further research is needed to tease apart these differences.

Table 16. Summary of the T-test Results for the Behavior, SpeakUp Variable

Groups 1 & 2 Groups 3 & 2 Groups 1 & 3
SpeakUp
(All participants)
p<0.05 No significance. p<0.05

90
Research Question 4a: By Student Affiliation
I then triangulated the data by first comparing the SpeakUp behavior score
for Groups 3 and 2 among all student affiliations. The result suggested no significant
difference in the SpeakUp behavior scores among those who joined fraternities, an
intercollegiate athletic team, an intramural athletic team, and Other registered student
organization. Tests to compare the SpeakUp behavior score for Groups 1 and 3
among all four student affiliations offered a similar result. After triangulation, the
results with all three pairs were not consistent. However, as the primary analysis
(Groups 1 and 2) indicated that the workshop had an impact on Self-reported
behavior , Speak Up and Object When Hearing a Negative Sexual Comment
(SpeakUp) among all student affiliations (Table 17), this suggests that there was a
strong association between the change in behavior score and the workshop. Since the
workshop was positive on its own, additional exploration is needed.

Table 17. Summary of Cohort Differences on the SpeakUp Variable Based on
Student Affiliation

Fraternity Athletic Intramural Other
SpeakUp 1-2: p<0.05 1-2: p<0.05 1-2: p<0.05 1-2: p<0.05
3-2: No
significance
3-2: No
significance
3-2: No
significance
3-2: No
significance
1-3: No
significance
1-3: No
significance
1-3: No
significance
1-3: No
significance

91
Research Question 4b: By Ethnicity
The last part of research question four compared the self-reported behaviors
in Groups 3 and 2 and Groups 1 and 3 as they related to student ethnicity,
White/Caucasian only. First, independent t-tests were conducted to compare the
behavior score for Groups 3 and 2 and for Groups 1 and 3 among those who were
white. Both results suggested no significant difference in score. But the results from
Groups 1 and 2 showed that the workshop had an impact on White/Caucasian men
regarding Speak Up and Object When Hearing a Negative Sexual Comment
(SpeakUp). The results were not consistent among all three pairs and need further
study.

Table 18. Summary of Cohort Differences on the SpeakUp Variable,
White/Caucasian

Groups 1 & 2 Groups 3 & 2 Groups 1 & 3
SpeakUp
(White/Caucasian)
p<0.05 No significance. No significance

Summary of Results
The primary statistical analysis of the workshop result (Groups 1 and 2)
showed that the workshops had a significant influence on participants’ change in
attitudes and behavior scores on five attitudes variables and one behavior variable:
The Composite Attitude variable indicated that the workshop was helpful in

92
changing participants’ general attitude toward rape. The participants’ understanding
of Need to Ask For Partner’s Consent for Sex (AskForConsent ) indicated that
participants learned that they cannot have sex with their partners unless those women
were willing. The variable Woman Often Lie About Being Raped To Get Back at
Their Dates (DateRap_1) showed an increase in awareness in the participants that
women did not report rape for revenge. Woman Asked To Be Raped (WomanAsk_1)
was a variable that showed an understanding on the part of the participants that rape
was a terrifying experience and no woman asked for it. The variable Entitlement to
Intercourse Even If Partner Changes Her Mind (ManEntit_1) showed awareness
among the workshop attendees that a man was not entitled to sexual intercourse if his
partner first agreed to it but at the last moment said “no.” Finally, one behavior
variable, Speak Up and Object When They Heard a Negative Sexual Comment
About Women (SpeakUp) stood out and provided an encouraging connection
between the workshop and the change among participants’ attitude and behavior
when witnessing a potential assault. In general, the findings on primary statistical
analysis (Group s 1 and 2) suggested that the workshop was helpful.
Initially, after the primary statistical analysis, it appeared that the workshop
was having an influence on participants’ attitudes about and behavior toward rape;
however, not all the findings listed above were confirmed after triangulation. When
triangulating the data among the three pairs, Groups 1 and 2, Groups 3 and 2, and
Groups 1 and 3, only two variables, DateRap_1 and SpeakUp variables, were able to
confirm a positive workshop influence. Still the primary statistical analysis showed

93
that the workshop was having an influence on attitudes and behavior. Even though
the analysis on Groups 3 and 2 and Groups 1 and 3 did not confirm that all five
attitude variables had an influence from the workshop, it did not negate the results
either. These apparent contradictions among the results will be discussed in the
following chapter, but further research is needed to examine this relationship. In
addition to the discussion of these findings, suggestions for future research and
implications for improving professional practices will also be addressed.

94
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
On January 30, 2010 in Columbia, Missouri, a 19-year-old female college
student reported being raped outside a fraternity after she attended the party hosted
by the house (Essner & Ross, 2010). On September 15, 2009 in Uniondale, New
York, an 18- year-old female student was gang-raped by five men on her college
campus, and one of them was a male college student from the same college (Ng,
2009). At the University of Wisconsin-Madison early last year, a woman woke up in
a fraternity to discover she had been brutally raped with no recollection of the event.
Doctors confirmed there had been more than one perpetrator. It appears she was
drugged and then gang raped, although no one could be charged because she was
unconscious and could not identify her assailants.
There have been thousands of new stories about youth violence in recent
years, showing that such violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated not by youths of
both sexes, but rather by adolescent males (Katz, 2004). Their prevailing attitudes
about sexual prowess dominate their behavior because of belief systems of what their
sexuality should be and what they believe are the sexual practices of their peers.
When they enter college, they are testing the waters with peers and members of the
opposite sex, which can lead to or reinforce inappropriate machismo behaviors and
attitudes (Sanday, 1990). Research shows that prevention programs that target young
people for intervention provide opportunities for primary prevention and result in the
deterrence of violence (Morrison et al, 2004; Yeaster & O’Donohue, 1999).

95
However, little is known about the influence of preventive educational sessions or
workshops that specifically target men, and evidence supporting the effectiveness of
these programs remains weak (Morrison et al, 2004).
Furthermore, the effects of exposure to those programs are not well
documented. To fill this knowledge gap, this study assesses the outcomes of a
prevention program at a private 4-year research university. Specifically, this study
was designed to examine the association of a men-only violence prevention program
on college men’s attitudes and self-reported behavior toward women over a one year
period. This prevention program was designed to reduce targeted male students’
support for rape myths, increase targeted male students’ anti-violence behaviors, and
reduce the rate of violence committed by all male students against women (Sundt,
Battle, & Li, 2008).
Moreover, this study examines the association of the prevention program by
tracking the attitudes and knowledge of the participants for its changes over 12
months. Finding ways to reduce the probability of sexually abusive behavior in
undergraduate men through effective prevention programs is an important step
toward reducing violence against women on campuses (Gilbert, Heesacker, &
Gannon, 1991; Yeater & O’Donohue, 1999). Notably, determining the association of
the program in adjusting men’s attitudes and behaviors is a way to assess what
programs can do to implement positive change.

96
Discussion of Findings
The following section briefly summarizes the findings, those that had positive
results as well as an explanation of why some of the results are not conclusive.
Guided by the research questions, the first discussion focuses on the findings on the
attitude items based on different students’ affiliations and students’ ethnicity. Then
the discussion shifts to research question two, the change in self-reported behavior
scores based on different students’ affiliations and students’ ethnicity. Lastly,
research questions three and four deal with the findings, specifically cohort
differences among the participants.
Research Question One: The Workshop Results on the Attitudes
The examination of whether the workshop has improved participants’
understanding on the attitude and behavior items shows that five of the attitude
variables stand out: Composite Attitudes, AskForConsent, DateRap_1,
WomanAsk_1, and ManEntit_1. These variables demonstrate significance in the Pre-
workshop vs. Post-workshop analysis (Groups 1 and 2). Thus, results suggest that the
workshop has an influence on decreasing rape myth acceptance and increasing
knowledge of sexual violence among the participants. As the application of social
norms intervention suggests (Berkowitz, 2004b), correcting misperceptions is a
major step towards reducing sexual violence. Therefore, the result of these five
attitude variables echoes the social norms approach. Fixing false concepts of what is
normal can result in reduced instances of unhealthy behavior and beliefs (Berkowitz,
2004b).

97
Only one variable, Woman Often Lie About Being Raped To Get Back at
Their Dates (DateRap_1) stands out after I triangulate the data with the uncontrolled
group, Group 3 (Pre-workshop 2007). Additionally, Groups 1 and 2 and Groups 3
and 2 have a positive change in the DateRap_1 scores. The result suggests that the
participants’ misperceptions that woman often lie about being raped to get back at
their dates change significantly after the workshop. Because only one variable is
confirmed, further research is needed to explore this relationship.
While only one variable is confirmed with the triangulation, it cannot be
assumed that the workshop has no influence on the participants’ change in the other
attitudes. One specific attitude change confirms the alteration in attitude and a few
other attitude variables suggest a change in attitude scores among the participants;
therefore, I am able to determine that Men CARE, as suggested by other research
(Banyard et al, 2007 & Berkowitz, 2004), can be helpful in decreasing rape myth
acceptance and increasing knowledge of sexual violence for all groups.
Research Question Two: The Workshop Results on the Behavior
The findings for the intervention/workshop on one behavior variable, Speak
Up and Object When They Heard a Negative Sexual Comment About Women
(SpeakUp), stands out among the members of fraternities, intercollegiate athletic
teams, intramural athletic teams and those who are White/Caucasian. The magnitude
of each mean score is positive, suggesting that the participants are more willing to
voice an objection when someone speaks derogatorily about females, which bodes
well for preventing potential assaults as bystanders can have an influence. As

98
Banyard et al. (2005, 2007) and Latane and Darley (cited in Berkowitz, 2002)
suggest, such sexual violence prevention programs increase improvement in self-
reported bystander behavior knowledge and provide necessary skills in order to act.
Thus, it is possible for this study to conclude that participants who take part in a
workshop began to perceive rape as a risky behavior (Berkowitz, 1999; Schewe,
2002), and are able to provide accurate normative feedback such as confronting
people who have problem behaviors or are carriers of misperceptions (Berkowitz,
2004b; 2005; Perkins, 1997).
Although other research suggests that behavior is often affected by attitude
(cited from Wicker, 1969) and often the findings for the attitude changes are weak, it
does not suggest the findings in the behavior change among the participants is not
valid. As Wicker (1969) mentions, research (cited from Wicker, 1969) shows that
behavior cannot always be calculated by attitude. The relationship between attitude
and behavior is often weak and can easily be affected by other factors such as
situation, time and place. Ultimately it is behavior that does or does not cause sexual
violence.
Thus, the implications of the positive changes in the “Speak up and Object”
variable are considerable. When a mob mentality takes over, people behave in ways
that they might not if they are alone. This behavior or lack of action echoes the social
norms theory that suggests that students’ attitudes and behavior are formed by and
based on the culture of the society in which they are involved and that students often
believe incorrect information or myth (Berkowitz, 2004). Thus, bystanders bear

99
responsibility when sexual violence occurs, for there is tacit approval in their silence
or apathy (Katz, 1995; n.d.). Objecting is a behavior that when implemented could
effectively arrest a sexual assault before it happens. If bystanders had been able to
“speak up and object” when young women were being raped or being drugged in
order to be raped, these incidents might never have occurred.
Moreover, eradicating myths is a major step towards reducing sexual
violence. The findings suggest that the Men CARE workshop increases positive
behavior changes in the participants that would potentially stop what could become
an incident or crime. By understanding information about sexual violence,
recognizing problematic behavior among peers, understanding ways of getting
consent and intervening in social situations, young men can change their behavior
(no page number, Sundt & Henneman, 2008). Thus, we can conclude that this study
does show the enforcement of positive behaviors and attitudes on what is acceptable
and normal male behavior, which potentially can influence all bystanders and peers.
The young male adolescent’s perception of normal sexual behavior can shift when
seeing other men behave in a way that is appropriate and non-sexually aggressive.
Consequently, the positive results from this research echo those of other
previous research: the theory of social norms, the bystander approach, all-male
prevention programs and an all-male approach that frames sexual assault prevention
as a social problem that requires that men intervene in other men’s behavior in order
to produce more positive outcomes in behaviors (Berkowitz, 2002; Brecklin &
Forde, 2001; Earle 1996; Katz, 1995). Furthermore, the significant differences

100
between these two pairs, Groups 1 and 2, and Groups 3 and, 2 suggest that the
participants sustained the behavior change over 1 year. In sum, the findings on
primary statistical analysis suggest that the workshop is helpful in decreasing rape
myth acceptance, increasing knowledge of sexual violence, increasing pro-social
bystander attitudes, and increasing bystander efficacy. These shifts are significant
because all involve a man’s attitude about a woman’s right to her own body.
Therefore, the Men CARE program initiates additional support for how the men
programs and the social norms approach can be designed, implemented, and
evaluated to address sexual violence problems on college campuses.
Research Questions Three and Four: The Cohort Results on the Attitudes and
Behavior
Research questions three and four tested the cohort difference among the
Groups. The purpose of the test was not only to act as the agent to triangulate the
data, but also to examine whether students from a later year came with different
attitudes. As mentioned in an earlier chapter, the participants in Group 3 (Pre-
workshop 2007) came a year later than those in Group 1 (Pre-workshop 2006). They
also were the only Group that experienced the social norms campaign that was taking
place on the campus, separate from the workshop intervention. Thus, it is interesting
to see if any difference exists between the cohorts. Groups 1 and 3 were tested.
The attitude variables section suggests a cohort influence among all the
participants in several attitude variables. This finding suggests that students might
have come with different attitudes over the years. Several variables show strong

101
evidence of a difference in cohort, specifically with those who are members of an
intercollegiate athletic team, other registered student organization and those who are
not White/Caucasian. Similarly, the differences in scores also show in the behavior
items, especially on all participants and those who are not White/Caucasian. Such
results can possibly contribute to the likelihood that different cohorts of students
come in with different attitudes over the years.
However, I was not able to conclude that the differences in both attitude and
behavior items were solidly contributed by the cohorts. Because one cohort (Group 1
– Pre-workshop 2006) did not experience the social norms campaign and the other
cohort (Group 3 – Pre-workshop 2007) did, another possible explanation for the
differences between the two cohorts might be the influences from the social norms
campaign on the campus during the time of the data collection period. As many
researchers, Berkowitz (2003, 2004 and 2007) and Sundt, et al. (2008) suggest, a
social norms campaign can change the attitudes and beliefs in men. Social norms
marketing campaigns that deliver messages about social norms that aim to correct
men’s misperceptions might cause differences in attitudes and behaviors among the
cohorts.
The differences between Group 1 and 3 are inconclusive. I am not able to
prove that the differences in change in attitude and behavior scores are due to the
social norms campaign or the cohort differences. Further investigation is needed to
sort out the causes of the difference in scores among Groups.

102
Although the findings on the Men CARE program are disappointing in that
more variables were not influenced, the results on the five of the 13 attitude variables
and one behavior variable are encouraging because some baby steps towards
improvement in the field have been achieved, particularly in the areas of rape myth
and interrupting a potential attack before it begins. In summary, the Men CARE
program echoed the bystander approach and social norm theory which was used in
this study. The results show that the Men CARE program exposed students’
perceptions of false attitudes and beliefs, recognized inappropriate behavior, and
encouraged a commitment to intervene. It induces in men, as members of a
community, the need to understand that sexual violence is never normal and is
everyone’s problem (Banyard, etal., 2005, 2007). Finally, workshops such as Men
CARE can have results, and with continued research and perseverance, more
progress can be achieved.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study provide two important implications for practitioners
in the field of rape prevention on college campuses. They are, first, that the findings
of the Men CARE study suggest that the program is capable of influencing
participants’ attitudes and behaviors on sexual violence issues and second, the
change can be long term. Colleges today have a wide array of response strategies and
mechanisms to respond to sexual violence, such as social norms and bystander
approaches, and the evaluation of the programs is extensive. But the evidence of
effectiveness of the programs remains weak. Although the men-only prevention

103
program in this study is not a new concept, the Men CARE program is one of many
great ideas for preventing rape on college campuses. It combines the best strategies
from other men-only prevention programs, such as single-sex only workshops, more
than one session, peer leaders, and marketing to reinforce themes on corrected and
healthy perceptions towards sexual violence attitudes and behavior (Sundt &
Henneman, 2009). Moreover, very few studies have tracked the results more than
seven months. Therefore, the results of this study signify that the Men CARE
program has positive outcomes on attitude and behavior change one year after the
intervention, specifically on college male students. In sum, the Men CARE program
offers great promise in reaching the potential of rape prevention and decreasing
sexual violence incidents on college campuses.
This research study is a first step in moving beyond acknowledging the
existence of campus’ men-only prevention programs to examining the influence of
the prevention programs on students over time. Moreover, understanding the
prevention efforts are important for suppressing violence ahead of time by raising
awareness among all men and women, those who are potential perpetrators and
victims, as well as bystanders. The Men CARE program initiates a successful
example of this intervention. Based on the outcomes of this study, the participants
are more willing to protest when hearing negative remarks about women and be
proactive in stopping a potential incident or crime when they see a risky situation
evolving. Therefore, this study is equally important from the point of view of its own
outcomes as well as its implications for the future safety of college campuses. By

104
taking what worked from the Men CARE program and making changes to address its
flaws, the program can evolve. Already Men CARE has achieved something other
programs have not, which is a focus on getting results over time. By using the
successes of the Men CARE program, future efforts will be more focused in their
attempts to reach more men over longer periods.
Recommendations for Research
Given the limitations and the two significant findings presented, the
outcomes of this study have important implications for future research studies. Three
recommendations are proposed in the following section to address and develop
additional research in the sexual violence prevention programs on college campuses.
The first two recommendations pertain to the overall study design. The third
recommendation is about how the data is collected.
First of all, although the findings of this study show some influence on an
attitude and a behavior because of the intervention/workshop, the findings from this
study reflect mixed results on the leverage of the men-only prevention program in
this urban 4-year research university. Because different groups show different results
in attitude and behavior scores, that is, some attitudes and/or behaviors are
influenced by the interventions and some of them are not, another opportunity for
future inquiry would be to conduct a qualitative study to explore in greater detail
why the outcome suggests that only five attitude items and one of the four behavior
items show positive and effective change, and why no influence or outcome is
present on all the attitude and behavioral items. It would be significant to broaden the

105
research scope by asking why the prevention workshops are not able to provide the
same influence, for example, on positive change in behavior and/or attitudes, on all
items. Answering these questions would be helpful for achieving a more in-depth
understanding of what part of prevention programs work and why they work. Clearly
one of the problems is that the participants are voluntary and the results are self-
reported. If Men CARE could be mandatory for all students attending a private
university, and responses tested through other methods besides self-reported surveys,
such as by reactions to certain stimuli, more honest responses could be gathered.
Additionally, in an extension of allowing men to be seen as part of the
solution rather than the problem, attendees should be invited to participate in the
process of refining the program. Since the use of peers as facilitators of the program
seems to have a good impact, it might be beneficial to try to solicit ideas from the
participants themselves after they have finished the program. They should be asked
to provide feedback as to what they think would be effective tools for or changes to
the program for preventing rape on campus. This would serve two purposes: it would
allow potential perpetrators or interveners to offer some suggestions. Sometimes
people coming fresh to a subject can have new insights that can be overlooked by
people who have spent years in the field. Secondly, it would allow those running the
program to try to gauge how effective the program is. Is the group bursting with
ideas or are they uninterested and/or reticent? Integrating more participation could
also be an empowering factor because the participants become part of the system

106
itself that is trying to prevent sexual violence. If they have offered valuable ideas,
they achieve a personal victory when sexual violence decreases.
Another important study design change is to try to control other influences.
During the time period of the Men CARE project, the campus had undergone a social
norms campaign. Both, the Men CARE workshops and the social norms campaign
on the campus overlapped during a period of up to one year. Posters stating facts on
sexual violence, such as how to stop and prevent sexual assaults, were hung on the
campus. Consequently, it is hard to isolate the participants from the effects of the
campus social norms campaign. In future, the study should find a way to isolate the
participants to the workshop only.
Finally data collection needs to be addressed. Although the data includes as
many “Other” ethnicities and culturally diverse background participants as possible,
this data has a significantly high proportion of White/Caucasian students who join
fraternities, intercollegiate athletic teams, intramural athletic teams or Other
registered student organizations. However, most of the universities and colleges
today are not composed primarily of students of one single ethnicity or cultural
background. Thus, it is important to broaden the sample to include more participants
from other ethnicities and different kinds of backgrounds to reflect the diversity of
the current status of the university. In future, the study on prevention programs
should include as many ethnicities or different cultural background college male
students as possible in order to further reduce the numbers of crime on college
campuses. This too could be achieved by making participation mandatory.

107
Conclusions
In preventing sexual violence, the ultimate goals are ending sexually
aggressive behavior by individuals and changing community and societal norms that
support and condone sexual violence. As the social norms approach provides efforts
to end sexual violence and exploitation with strategies for changing the environments
in which violence and exploitation occur, the Men CARE program includes a focus
on perpetrator behavior and the risk factors that render victims vulnerable, while also
incorporating methodologies that can foster larger environmental change. The results
of this study provide another piece of evidence to support the success of the social
norms approach in preventing sexually violent behavior by speaking out against
social norms that support sexual violence and promoting the idea of taking a
proactive stance when volatile situations arise. Finally, this study can spur further
development of the model, including further application and study of how men
programs and social norms relate to preventing sexual violence. Changing the social
norms is a way to reduce sexual violence before it becomes sexual violence. Having
correct information is the initial step toward forming attitudes that do not support
rape or sexual violence against women in order to make healthier behavior choices.
If those attitudes and behaviors are changed early on, it could significantly minimize
the incidence of sexual violence in college communities.
The Men CARE project has had a positive outcome on participants’ attitudes
and behavior change. It demonstrates that the workshop is helpful in decreasing rape
myth acceptance, increasing knowledge of sexual violence, increasing pro-social

108
bystander attitudes, and increasing bystander efficacy. It is a step toward the
improvement for the future safety of college campuses. To conclude my study in one
sentence, Men CARE initiates the changes that induce men to take responsibility for
rape.

109
REFERENCES
Agostinelli, G., Brown, J. M., &Miller, W. R. (1995). Effects of normative feedback
on consumption among heavy drinking college students. Journal of Drug
Education, 25(1), 31-40.

Anderson, L. A., & Whiston, S. C. (2005). Sexual assault education programs: A
meta-analytic examination of their effectiveness. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 29, 374-288.

Bachman, R. (1998). A comparison of annual incidence rates and contextual
characteristics of intimate perpetrated violence against women from the
National Crime Victimization Survey and the National Violence Against
Women Survey. Paper submitted to the National Institute of Justice.

Banks, S. (2009). Finding a deeper lesson in high school gang rape. LA Times.
Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks7-
2009nov07,0,427613.column.

Banks, S. (2009). Plenty of questions but no easy answers in wake of gang rape:
brutality of the incident at Richmond High is hard to fathom. LA Times.
Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks31-
2009oct31,0,41271.column.

Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E. G. (2007). Sexual violence
prevention through bystander ducation: An experimental evaluation. Journal
of Community Psychology, 35(4), 463-481.

Banyard, V. L., Plante, E. G., & Moynihan, M. M. (2005). Rape prevention through
bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual
violence prevention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Data
retrieved on March 19, 2008: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/

Barnett, N. J., & Field, h. S. (1977). Sex differences in university students’ attitudes
toward rape. Journal of College Student Personnel, 18, 93-96.

Barone, R. P., Wolgemuth, J. R., & Linder, C. (2007). Preventing sexual assault
through engaging college men. Research in Brief, 48(5), 585-594.

Barth, R. P., Derezotes, D. S., Danforth, H. E. (1991). Preventing adolescent abuse.
Journal of Primary Prevention, 11, 193-205.

110
Basile, K. C. & Saltzman, L. E. (2002). Sexual violence surveillance: uniform
definitions and recommended data elements version 1.0. Atlanta: Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control. Data retrieved on March 20, 2008, from:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/sv_surveillance/SexViolSurv.pdf.

Basile, K. C., and Saltzman, L. E. (2002). Sexual Violence Surveillance: Uniform
definitions and recommended data elements. Atlanta: Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Data retrieved March 30, 2008:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/sv_surveillance/SexViolSurv.pdf.

Berkowitz, A. D. (1994). Men and rape: Theory, research, and prevention programs
in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berkowitz, A. D. (2001). Are Foubert’s calims about “The Men’s Program”
overstated? Retrieved June 28, 2008, from personal website of Alan
Berkowitz: http://www.alanberkowitz.com/articles/mens_program.pdf

Berkowitz, A. D. (2002). Fostering men’s responsibility for preventing sexual
assault. In P. Schewe (Ed.), Preventing violence in relationships. (pp. 163-
196). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Berkowitz, A. D. (2003). Sexual assault prevention. In M. Kimmel & A. Aronson,
(Eds.), Masculinities: A social cultural and historical encyclopedia (Vol. 2,
pp. 719-720). Denver: ABC-CLIO.

Berkowitz, A. D. (2004a). The social norms approach: Theory, research, and
annotated bibliography. Data retrieved March 1, 2008:
www.alanberkowitz.com

Berkowitz, A. D. (2004b). Working with men to prevent violence against women:
An overview (Part one). Data retrieved on March 20, 2008:
www.alanberkowitz.com.

Berkowitz, A. D. (2005). An overview of the social norms approach. In L. C.
Lederman & L. P. Stewart (Eds.), Changing the culture of college drinking:
A social situated health communication campaign (pp. 193-214). New Jersey:
Hampton Press.

Berkowitz, A. D. (2007). Fostering healthy norms to prevent violence and abuse:
The social norms approach. Data retrieved on May 20, 2008:
www.alanberkowitz.com.

111
Berkowitz, A. D., Burkhart, B. R., & Bourg, S. E. (1994). Research on college men
and rape. In A. D. Berkowitz (Ed.), Men and rape: Theory, research, and
prevention programs in higher education. (pp.3-19). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Bethlehem, J., (2008). How accurate are self-selection web surveys. Statistics
Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen. Retrieved from: www.cbs.nl.

Boeringer, S. B. (1999). Associations of rape-supportive attitudes with fraternity and
athletic participation. Violence Against Women, 5(1), 81-90.

Boswell, A. A., & Spade, J. Z. (1996). Fraternities and collegiate rape: Why are
some fraternities more dangerous places for women? Gender & Society,
10(2), 133-147.

Boulter, C. (1997). Effects of an acquaintance rape prevention program on male
college students’ endorsement of rape myths and sexually coercive behaviors.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman,
WA.

Breckler, S. J. (1987). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as
distinct components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47(6), 1191-1205.

Brecklin, L. R., & Forde, D. R. (2001). A meta-analysis of rape education programs.
Violence and Victimes, 16(3), 303-321.

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

Breitenbecher, K. H., & Scarce, M. (2001). An evaluation of the effectiveness of a
sexual assault education program focusing on psychological barriers to
resistance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 387-407.

Burt, M. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 38(2), 217-230.

Capaldi, D. M., Dishion, T. J., Stoolmiller, M., & Yoerger, K. (2001). Aggression
toward female partners by at-risk young men: The contribution of male
adolescent friendships. Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 61-73.

112
Capraro, R. L. (1994). Disconnected lives: Men, Masculinity, and rape prevention. In
A. D. Berkowitz (Ed.), Men and rape: Theory, research, and prevention
programs in higher education. (pp.21-33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). Current estimates of the number
of people age 12+ seeking care at the ED following a sexual assault.
Retrieved July 15, 2008, from
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

Chandler, S. B., Johnson, D. J., & Carroll, P. A. (1999). Abusive behaviors of
college athletes. College Student Journal, 33(4), 638-645.

Chen, S. (2009). Gang rape raises questions about bystanders’ role. CNN. Retrieved
from
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/28/california.gang.rape.bystander/inde
x.html

Choate, L. H. (2003). Sexual assault prevention programs for college men: An
exploratory evaluation of the men against violence model. Journal of College
Counseling, 6, 166-176.

Chung, D., O’Leary, P. J., & Hand, T. (2006). Sexual violence offenders: Prevention
and intervention approaches. Australia: The Australian Centre for the Study
of Sexual Assault. Data retrieved on July 15, 2008: www.aifs.gov.au/acssa.

Communication Institute for Online Scholarship (no date). Persuasion. Retrieved
from http://www.cios.org/encyclopedia/persuasion/index.htm.

Creswell, J. W. (1997). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. California: Sage
Publication.

Cunninghan, J. A., Wild, T. C., Bondy, S. J., & Lin, E. (2001). Impact of normative
feedback on problem drinkers: A small-area population study. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, 62(2), 228-233.

Davis, T. L. (1999). Review of the men’s program: How to successfully lower men’s
likelihood of raping. Journal of College S tudent Development, 40(6), 755-
757.

Davis, T. L. (2000). Programming for men to reduce sexual violence. In: D. Liddel
& J. Lund (Eds.), New Directions for Student Services: Vol. 90. Powerful
programs for student learning: Approaches that make a differences. (pp.79-
89), San Francisco, Jossey Bass.

113
DeJong, W. (2003). A social norms approach to building campus support for policy
change. In H. W. Perkins (Ed.), The social norms approach to preventing
school and college age substance abuse: A handbook for educators,
counselors, clinicians (pp. 145-169). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Donaldson, S. I. & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002) Understanding Self-Reporting Bias in
Organizational Behavior Research. Journal of Business and Psychology,
17(2), 245-260.

Dunnagan, T., Hayes, G., Linkenbach, J., & Shatwell, P. (2003). Developing
theoretical and environmental policy for underage drinking. American
Journal of Health and Behavior, 25(7), 508-523.

Earle, J. P. (1996). Acquaintance rape workshops: Their effectiveness in changing
the attitudes of first year college men. NASPA Journal, 34, 2-18.

Earle, J., & Harris, C. (1989). College students and blue-collar workers: A
comparative analysis of sex-role attitudes. Sociological Spectrum, 9, 455-
466.

Ellis, A. L., O’Sullivan, C. S., & Sowards, B. A. (1992). The impact of contemplated
exposure to a survivor of rape on attitudes toward rape. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 22, 889-895.

Essner, E., & Ross, L., (2010). MU student reports rape outside fraternity house.
Missourian. Retrieved from:
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2010/02/03/update-mu-student-
reports-rape-outside-fraternity-house/

Fabiano, P. (2003). Applying the social norms model to universal and indicated
alcohol interventions at Western Washington University. In H. W. Perkins
(Ed.), The social norms approach to preventing school and college age
substance abuse: A handbook for educators, counselors, clinicians (pp. 83-
99). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fabiano, P. M., Perkins, H. W., Berkowitz, A. D., Linkenbach, J., & Stark, C.
(2003). Engaging men as social justice allies in ending violence against
women: Evidence for a social norms approach. Journal of American College
Health, 52(3), 105-112.

Feild, H. (1978). Attitudes toward rape: A comparative analysis of police, rapists,
crisis counselors, and citizens. Journal of Personaltiy and Social Psychology,
36, 125-139.

114
Feltey, K. M., Ainslie, J. J., & Geib, A. (1991). Sexual coercion attitudes among high
school students: The influence of gender and rape education. Youth &
Society, 23, 229-250.

Feltey, K. M., Ainslie, J. J., Geib, A. (2005). Sexual coercion attitudes among high
school students: The influence of gender and rape education. Youth &
Society. Retrieved from ProQuest Information and Learning Company
database.

Finkelhor, D. (1986). A sourcebook on child sexual abuse. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., and Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of
college women. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics.

Fisher, B. S., Sloan, J. J., Cullen, F. T., & Lu, C. (1998). Crime in the ivory tower:
The level and sources of student victimization. Criminology, 36(3), 671-710.

Foubert, J. D. (2000). The longitudinal effects of a rape repvention program on
fraternity men’s attitudes, behavioral intent, and behavior. Journal of
American College Health, 48, 55-70.

Foubert, J. D. (2000). The longitudinal effects of a rape-prevention program on
fraternity men’s attitudes, behavioral intent, and behavior. Journal of
American College Health, 48(4), 158-163.

Foubert, J. D. (2005). Anti-rape on the road: Men hit the highways to share a
powerful message. About Campus, 24-27.

Foubert, J. D. (no date). The truth about “Are Foubert’s Claims About ‘The Men’s
Program’ Overstated.” Retrieved June 28, 2008, from personal website of
Alan Berkowitz: http://www.alanberkowitz.com/articles/mens_program.pdf

Foubert, J. D., & La Voy, S. A. (2000). A qualitative assessment of “The Men’s
Program”: The impact of a rape prevention program on fraternity men.
NASPA Journal, 38, 18-30.

Foubert, J. D., & Marriot, K. A. (1996). Overcoming men’s defensiveness toward
sexual assault programs: Learning to help survivors. Journal of College
Student Development, 37, 470-471.

Foubert, J. D., & Marriott, K. A. (1997). Effects of a sexual assault peer education
program on men’s belief in rape myths. Sex Roles, 36, 259-268.

115
Foubert, J. D., & McEwen, M. K. (1998). An all-male rape prevention peer
education program: Decreasing fraternity men’s behavioral intent to rape.
Journal of College Student Development, 39, 548-556.

Foubert, J. D., & Newberry, J. T. (2006). Effects of two versions of an empathy-
based rape prevention program on fraternity men’s rape survivor empathy,
rape myth acceptance, likelihood of raping, and likelihood of committing
sexual assault. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 133-148.

Foubert, J. D., & Perry, B. C. (2007). Creating lasting attitude and behavior change
in fraternity members and male student athletes: The qualitative impact of an
empathy-based rape prevention program. Violence Against Women, 13(1), 1-
17.

Foubert, J. D., Tatum, J. L., Donahue, G. A. (2006). Reactions of first-year men to a
rape prevention program: Attitude and predicted behavior changes. NASPA
Journal, 43(3), 578-598.

Frese, B., Moya, M., & Megias, J. L. (2004). Social perception of rape: How rape
myth acceptance modulates the influence of situational factors. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 19, 143-161.

Fried, M. H. (1967). The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in Political
Anthropology. New York: Random House.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R.. (2003). Educational Research: An
Introduction (7
th
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Garrett-Gooding, J., & Senter, R. (1987). Attitudes and acts of sexual aggression on
a university campus. Sociological Inquiry, 59, 348-371.

Gilbert, B., Heesacker, M., and Gannon, L. (1991). Changing the sexual aggression-
supportive attitudes of men: A psychoeducational intervention. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 38(2), 197-203.

Gray, M.D., Lesser, D., Quinn, E., & Bounds, C. (1990). The effectiveness of
personalizing acquaintance rape prevention: Programs on perception of
vulnerability and risk-taking behavior. Journal of College Student
Development, 31, 217-220.

Grube, J. W., Mayton, D. M., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1994). Inducing change in
values, attitudes, and behaviors: Belief system theory and the method of value
self-confrontation Journal of Social Issues, 50, 153-173.

116
Haines, M. (1997). A social norms approach to preventing binge drinking at colleges
and universities. Newton, MA: U.S. Department of Justice.

Haines, M. P. (1996). A social norms approach to preventing binge drinking at
colleges and universities. Massachusetts: The Higher Education Center for
Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention.

Hall, G. C. (1996). Theory-based assessment, treatment, and prevention of sexual
aggression. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hamilton, M., & Yee, J. (1990). Rape knowledge and propensity to rape. Journal of
Research in Personality, 24, 111-122.

Hanson, K. A., & Gidycz, C. A. (1993). An evaluation of a sexual assault prevention
program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 1046-1052.

Heppner, M. J., Neville, H. A., Smith, K., Kivlighan, D. M., & Gershuny, B. S.
(1999). Examining immediate and long-term efficacy of rape prevention
programming with racially diverse college men. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 46, 16-26.

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 no. 4, 508-
518.

Hildebran, D., & Pithers, W. (1989). Enhancing offender empathy for sexual-abuse
victims. In D. Laws (Eds.), Relapse prevention with sex offenders (pp.236-
243). New York: Guilford.

Hildebran, D., & Pithers, W. (1992). Relapse prevention: Application and outcome.
In W. O’Donohue & J. Geer (Eds.), The sexual abuse of children: Clinical
issues (pp.236-243). Hillsdatel, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaurm.

Hillenbrand-Gunn, T. L., Heppner, M. J., Mauch, P. A., & Park, H. J. (2004).
Acquaintance rape and male high school students: Can a social norms
intervention change attitudes and perceived norms? Paper presented at the
Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. Honolulu,
Hawaii.

Himmelstrand, V. (1960). Verbal attitudes and behavior: A paradigm for the study of
message transmission and transformation. Public Opinion Quarterly,
24(Summer), 224-250.

117
Hollon, S. D. and Beck, A. T. (1986). Cognitive and cognitive behavioral therapies.
In S. L. Garfield & A. E. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and
behavior change (3
rd
ed., p. 428-446). New York: John Wiley.

Hong, L. (2000). Toward a transformed approach to prevention: Breaking the link
between hegemonic masculinity and violence. Journal of American College
Health, 48, 269-282.

Johannessen, K. J., Collins, C., Mills-Novoa, B. M., & Glider, P. (1999). A practical
guide to alcohol abuse prevention: A campus case study in implementing
social norms and environmental management approaches. Data retrieved on
August 1, 2008: http://www.higheredcenter.org/

Kahn, A., & Mathie, V. A. (2000). Understanding the unacknowledged rape victim.
In C. Travis and J. White, (Eds.), Sexuality, Society and Feminism (p. 337-
403). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Karjan, H. M., Fisher, B. S., and Cullen F. T. (2005). Sexual assault on campus:
What colleges and university are doing about it. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice. Data retrieved March 1, 2008:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/205521.pdf

Karjane, H. M., Fisher, B. S., and Cullen, F. T. (2002). Campus sexual assault: How
American’s institutions of higher education respond. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice. Data retrieved March 1, 2008.

Katz, J. (1995). Reconstructing masculinity in the locker room: The mentors in
violence prevention project. Harvard Educational Review, 65(2), 163-174.

Katz, J. (2004). Building A “big tent” approach to ending men’s violence. Data
retrieved on March 19, 2008: www.jacksonkatz.com.

Katz, J. (no date). Mentor in violence prevention program. Data retrieved on March
12, 2008: www.jacksonkatz.com.

Kilamartin, C. & Berkowitz, A. D. (2001). Sexual Assault in Context. New
Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Koss, M. P., & Gidycz, C. A. (1987). Sexual experiences survey: Reliability and
validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.

118
Koss, M. P., Leonard, K. E., Beezley, D. A., & Oros, C. J. (1985). Nonstranger
sexual aggression: A discriminate analysis of psychological characteristics of
nondetected offenders. Sex Roles, 12, 981-992.

Koss, M., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and
prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of
higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
55, 162-170.

Koss, M.P., & Dinero, T.E. (1989). Discriminant analysis of risk factors for sexual
victimization among a national sample of college women. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 57 no. 2, 242-250.

Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T., Fisher, B. S., and Marin, S. L. (2007). The
Campus sexual assault (CSA) study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice. Data retrieved on March 19, 2008:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf

Kubany, E. S., Abueg, F. R., Owens, J. A., Brennan, J. M., Kaplan, A. A., & Watson,
S. B. (1995). Initial examination of a multidimensional model of trauma-
related guilt: Applications to combat veterans and battered women. Journal
of Psychopathyology and Behavioral Assessment, 17, 353-376.

Larimer, M. E., & Cronce, J. M. (2002). Identification, prevention and treatment: A
review of individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol
consumption by college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement,
14, 148-163.

Larimer, M. M., Lydum, A. r., Anderson, B. K., & Turner, A. P. (1999). Male and
female recipients of unwanted sexual contact in a college student sample:
Prevalence rates, alcohol use, and depression symptoms. Sex Roles, 40(3/4),
295-308.

Linkenbach, J. (2003). The Montana model: Development and overview of a seven-
step process for implementing macro-level social norms campaigns. In H. W.
Perkins (Ed.), The social norms approach to preventing school and college
age substance abuse: A handbook for educators, counselors, clinicians (pp.
182-205). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

119
Lynch, J., Mowrey, R., Nesbitt, G., & O’Neil, D. (2004). Risky business:
Misperceived norms of sexual behavior among college students. NASPA
Journal, 42(1), 21-35.

M, S., (2009). Rape at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; Frat members
implicated. The SAFER Blog. Retrieved from:
http://www.safercampus.org/blog/?p=884

Malamuth, N. M. (1989). The attraction to sexual aggression scale: Part one. Journal
of Sex Research, 26(1), 26-49.

Mann, C. A., Hecht, M. L., & Valentine, K. B. (1988). Performance in a social
context: Date rape versus date right. Central States Speech Journal, 39, 269-
280.

Martens, M., Page, J., Mowry, E., Damann, K., Taylor, k., & Cimini, D. (2006).
Differences between actual and perceived student norms: An examination of
alcohol use, drug use, and sexual behavior. Journal of American College
Health, 54(5), 295-300.

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1993). Research in education: A conceptual
understanding. New York: Harper Collins.

Miller, D. T., & McFarland, C. (1987). Pluralistic ignorance: When similarity is
interpreted as dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
53(2), 298-305.

Miller, D. T., & McFarland, C. (1991). When social comparison goes awry: The case
of pluralistic ignorance. In J. Suls & T. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison:
Contemporary theory and research (pp. 287-313). New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Miller, T. R., Cohen, M. A., & Wiersema, B. (1996). Victim costs and consequences:
A new look. Washinginto, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice. Data retrieved on April 1, 2008 from:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/victcost.pdf.

Morrison, S., Hardison, J., Mathew, A., and O’Neil, J. (2004). An evidence-based
review of sexual assault prevention intervention programs. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice. Data retrieved on March 19, 2008.

Muehlenhard, C. L., Julsonnet, M. I. C., & Flarity-White, L. A. (1989). A
cognitive=behavioral program for preventing sexual coercion. The Behavior
Therapist, 12, 211-214.

120
Mulroney, J. (2003). Prevention programs for young people that promote healthy
relationships. In Practice and Prevention: Contemporary Issues in Adult
Sexual Assault in NSW Conference, (pp. 12-14). Sydney.

National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). Costs of intimate
partner violence against women in the United States. Atlanta, GA: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.

National Victim Center, and Crime Victim Research and Treatment Center. (1992).
Rape in America: A report to the nation. Washington, D.C.: National Center
for Victims of Crime.

Neame, A. (2003). Differing perspectives on “preventing” adult sexual assault.
Australia: The Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault. Data
retrieved on July 15, 2008: www.aifs.gov.au/acssa.

Ng, S., (2009). Female Hofstra student, 18, gang raped by 5 men. WPIX-TV.
Retrieved from: http://www.wpix.com/news/wpix-hofstra-student-
raped,0,3468974.story

O’Donohue, W., Yeater, E., and Fanetti, M. (2003). Rape prevention with college
male: The roles of rape myth acceptance, victim empathy, and outcome
expectancies. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(5), 513-531.

O’Sullivan, C. (1991). Acquaintance gang rape on campus. In A. Parrot & L.
Bechhofer (Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime, (pp.140-156). New
York: John Wiley & Sons.

Osland, J. A., Fitch, M., & Willis, E. E. (1996). Likelihood to rape in college males.
Sex roles: A Journal of Research, 35, 171-183.

Perkins, H. W. (1997). College student misperceptions of alcohol and other drug use
norms among peers. In, Designing alcohol and other drug prevention
programs in higher education: Bringing theory into practice (pp. 177-206).
Massachusetts: The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug
Prevention.

Perkins, H. W., & Craig, D. A. (2002). A multi-faceted social norms approach to
reduce high-risk drinking: Lessons from Hobart and William Smith Colleges.
Data retrieved on August 1, 2008: http://www.higheredcenter.org/.

121
Petty, R. E., & Cacioopo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelikhood model of
persuasion. In A. D. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986a). Communication and persuasion: Central
and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1996). Pluralistic ignorance and the perpetuation of
social norms by unwitting actors. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 28, 161-209.

Rand, M. & Catalano, S. (2007). Criminal Victimization 2006. Washington, D.C.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Rennison, C. M. (2001). National crime victimization survey, criminal victimization
2000: Changes 1999-2000 with trends 1993-2000. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 187007.

Rennison, C. M. (2002). National crime victimization survey, criminal victimization
2001: changes 2000-2001 with trends 1993-2001, Washing, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 187007.

Robertiello, G. & Terry, K. J. (2007). Can we profile sex offenders? A review of sex
offender typologies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 508-518.

Rokeach, M. (1966). Attitude change and behavioral change. The Public Opinion
Quarterly, 30(4). 529-550.

Ross, L., Greene, D. & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An
egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301.

Sanday, P (1990) Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on
Campus. New York City: New York University Press.

Schaeffer, A. M., & Nelson, E. S. (1993). Rape-supportive attitudes: Effects of on-
campus residence and education. Journal of College Student Development,
34, 175-179.

Schaeffer, A. M., & Nelson, E. S. (1993). Rape-supportive attitudes: Effects of on-
campus residence and education. Journal of College Student Development,
34, 175-179.

122
Scheel, E. D., Johnson, E. J., Schneider, M., & Smith, B. (2001). Making rape
education meaningful for men: The case for eliminating the emphasis on men
as perpetrators, protectors, or victims. Sociological Practice: A Journal of
Clinical and Applied Sociology, 3(4), 257-278.

Schewe, P. & O’Donohue, W. (1993). Rape prevention: Methodological problems
and new directions. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 667-682.

Schewe, P. A. (2002). Guidelines for developing rape prevention risk reduction
interventions: lessons from evaluation research. P. A. Schewe (Ed.),
Preventing intimate partner violence: Developmentally appropriate
interventions across the lifespan. City: American Psychological Association
Press.

Schewe, P. A., & Bennett, L. W. (2002). Evaluating prevention programs:
Challenges and benefits of measuring outcomes. In P. A. Schewe (Ed.),
Preventing violence in relationships: Interventions across the life span.
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Schewe, P. A., & O’Donohue, W. T. (1993b). Sexual abuse prevention with high-
risk males: The roles of victim empathy and rape myths. Violence and
Victims, 8, 336-348.

Scholly, K., Katz, A., Gasocoigne, J., & Holk, P. (2005). Using social norms theory
to explain perceptions and sexual health behaviors of undergraduate college
students: An exploratory study. Journal of American College Health, 53(4):
159-166.

Shultz, S. K., Sherman, A., & Marshall, L. J. (2000). Evaluation of a university-
based date rape prevention program: Effect on attitudes and behavior related
to rape. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 193-201.

Sochting, I., Fairbrother, N., & Koch, W. J. (2004). Sexual assault of women:
Prevention efforts and risk factors. Violence Against Women, 10(1), 73-93.

Spencer , J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1972). The attitudes towards women scale: An
objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of
women in contemporary society. Catalog of Selected Documents in
Psychology, 2, 66-67.

123
Stein, J. L., & Barnett, J. A. (2004). Male college students’ Willingness to prevent
rape: The impact of personal attitudes, referent group norms, and peer
educators. Presented at the Seventh Annual National Social Norms
Conference, 21-23 July, 2004.

Stevens, Lynne (2007). Screening for sexual violence: Gaps in research and
recommendations for change. Harrisburg, PA: VAWnet, a project of the
National Resource Center on Domestic violence/Pennsylvania Coalition
Against Domestic Violence. Data retrieved July 15, 2008,
from:http://www.vawnet.org.

Sundt, M. A., Battle, T., & Li, J. (2008). A study of undergraduate men’s self-
reported behaviors and attitudes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association. New York: New York.

The National Network to End Domestic Violence. (no date). Domestic violence and
sexual assault fact sheet. Retrieved from
http://www.nnedv.org/docs/Policy/2009_dvsa_factsheet.pdf.

Thompson, S. (1995). Date/acquaintance rape: The crime and criminal, Campus Law
Enforcement Journal, May/June.

Tittle, R., and Hill, J. (1976). Attitude measurement and prediction of behavior: An
evaluation of conditions and measurement techniques. Sociometry, 30(June),
199-213.

Toch, H., & Klofas, J. (1984). Pluralistic ignorance, Revisited. In G. M. Stephenson
& J. H. Davis (Eds.), Progress in applied social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 129-
159), New York: Wiley.

Ward, K. J. (no date). Mentors in violence prevention in Northeastern University:
Evaluation 1999-2000. Data retrieved on April 25, 2008:
http://www.sportinsociety.org/vpd/mvp.php.

Warshaw, R. (1988) I never called it rape. New York: Harper & Row.

Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes Versus Action: The Relationship of Verbal and
Overt Behavioral Relationship of Attitude Objects. Journal of Social Issues,
25(Autumn), 41-78.

Women Against Rape. (1980). A rape prevention program in an urban area:
Community action strategies to stop rape. Signs, 5, 238-241.

124
World Health Organization. (2002). World report on vilence and health. Data
retrieved on April 1, 2008, from:
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2002/9241545615_eng.pdf.

Yeater, E. A., and O’Donohue, W. T. (1999). Sexual assault prevention program:
Current issues, future directions, and the potential efficacy of interventions
with women. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 739-771.

Zanna, Mark P., Olson, James M., & Fazio, Russell H. (1980). Attitude-behavior
consistency: an individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology.38 no. 2, 432-440.

125
APPENDIX A
LIST OF VARIABLE NAMES
Composite Behavior Variables
(From the survey)
Variable names (Label)
(in SPSS)
Q18. I stop sexual activity when asked, even if “I am
already sexually aroused
Stop Sexual Activity When Asked”
StopSex
Q19. When I hear a negative sexual comment about
women, I speak up and object.
“Speak Up and Object When Hearing a Negative
Sexual Comment”
SpeakUp
Q20. When I witness a male “hitting on” a woman
and I know she doesn’t want it, I intervene.
“I Intervene When I Witness a Woman Who Doesn’t
Want to be “hit” on by a Male”
InterveneWitness
Q21. When I witness a situation in which a female
may end up being taken advantage of, I intervene.
InterveneTakenAdv

Composite Attitudes Variables
(From the survey)
Variable names (Label)
(in SPSS)
“Composite Attitudes” The composite of the 12
items of the Attitudes
subscale.
Q17. I need to ask for my partner’s consent for sex
every time I want it.
“Need to Ask For Partner’s Consent for Sex”
AskForCnsent
Q23. If a woman asks a man out on a date then she is
definitely interested in having sex.
“A Woman Initiating a Date is Interested in Having
Sex”
Womanint_1
Q24. The degree of a woman’s resistance should be a
major force in determining if rape has occurred.
“The Degree of a Woman’s Resistance Should be a
Major Force in Determining if Rape has Occurred”
ResistDeg_1
Q25. If a woman lets a man buy her dinner or pay for
a movie or drinks, she owes him sex.
“A Woman Owes a Man Sex if He buys Her Dinner”
PayOwe_1

126
Q26. It is okay to pressure a date to drink alcohol in
order to improve one’s chance of having sex with that
date.
“Okay to Pressure Date to Drink Alcohol to Improve
One’s Chance of Having Sex”
Pressure_1
Q27. Women often lie about being raped to get back
at their dates.
“Women Lie About Being Raped”
DateRap_1
Q28. In most cases when a woman was raped she was
asking for it.
“Woman Asked to be Raped”
WomanAsk_1
Q29. If it is a “real” rape, a victim will report it to the
police.
“A Victim Will Only Report a “Real Rape” to the
Police”
RealRape_1
Q30. Any healthy woman can successfully resist a
rapist if she really wants to.
“Any Woman Can Successfully Resist a Rapist”
WomanRes_1
Q31 A man is entitled to sexual intercourse if his
partner first agreed to it, but at the last moment says
“no.”
“Entitlement to Intercourse Even If Partner Changes
Her Mind”
ManEntit_1
Q32. A man can control his behavior no matter how
sexually aroused he feels.
Man Can Control His Behavior Regardless “How
Sexually Aroused He Feels.”
ManContr
Q33. A woman can control her behavior no matter
how sexually aroused she feels.
“Woman Can Control Behavior Regardless How
Sexually Aroused She Feels”
WomanCon

127
APPENDIX B
SURVEY INSTRUMENT ONE: USC MEN CARE VIOLENCE
PREVENTION PROJECT
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Melora Sundt, PhD,
from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. You
were selected as a possible participant in this study because you are a male student at
USC. A total of 1500 subjects will be selected from among USC male students to
participate. Your participation is voluntary.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: We are asking you to take part in a research study
because we are trying to learn more about the impact of a comprehensive program
preventing college men’s violence towards women. Specifically, we are interested in
knowing how participating in the workshop impacts male students’ beliefs about
violence against women, and their self-reported behavior, both immediately after the
workshop and 12 months later. The survey consists of approximately 35 questions
that ask you to indicate your level of agreement on a scale from 1-4 or as indicated.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS: This study poses no more than
minimal risk to you as a participant. You may feel some discomfort in answering
some items on the questionnaire. The information you might disclose on the
questionnaire will ask about self-reported behavior. As the topic of the study is
violence against women, it is possible that you might disclose what would be
considered illegal or criminal conduct. No one other than Dr. Sundt and the Project
Manager will have access to the questionnaires. When we write about the findings of
this study, we will not be identifying any individuals. We will be reporting data only
in the aggregate.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION: You will not be paid
for participating in this research study.

CONFIDENTIALITY: Any information that is obtained in connection with this
study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be
disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.

We have obtained a Confidentiality Certificate from the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (DHHS) to protect the researchers from being forced, even by
court order or subpoena, to identify you. (The Certificate does not imply approval or
disapproval of the project by the Secretary of DHHS. It adds special protection for
the research information about you.) You should know, however, that researchers
may provide information to appropriate individuals or agencies if harm to you, harm

128
to others, or child abuse or child neglect becomes a concern. In addition, the federal
agency funding this research may see your information if it audits us.

You should understand that a Confidentiality Certificate (CC) does not prevent you
or a member of your family from voluntarily releasing information about yourself or
your involvement in this research. Note however, that if an insurer or employer
learns about your participation, and obtains your consent to receive research
information, then the investigator may not use the CC to withhold the information.
This means that you and your family must also actively protect your own privacy.

The questionnaires you complete will be stored in Dr. Sundt’s locked filing room
once the answers have been entered into a database on her computer. That database
is password protected and will not be accessible to anyone other than the research
team. The data will be stored for a minimum of three years from the acceptance of
our final report to the U.S. Department of Education. When the results of the
research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will be included
that would reveal your identity.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL: You can choose whether to be in this
study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study, you may withdraw at any time
without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any questions you
don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw
you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so. By completing
this survey, you are indicating your consent to participate in this study. If you do not
wish to give your consent, do not complete the survey.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS: If you have any questions or
concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Dr. Melora Sundt, Principal
Investigator at (213) 740-2157.

129
Demographic Data

2. Please indicate the year you were born: __________________.

3. What year did you begin your studies at USC?
______ Prior to 2000 ______2001 ______2002
______2003 ______2004 ______2005
______Other (please specify) __________

4. Please indicate your racial/ethnic identification (please mark only one)
o White/Caucasian
o African American
o Asian/Asian American
o Latino/Other Spanish-speaking
o Native American
o Filipino American
o Multi-racial
o Other (please specify) __________

5. Please indicate if you are a member of the following groups on campus (check all
that apply)
o Fraternity
o Intercollegiate athletic team
o Intramural athletic team
o Registered student organization other than a fraternity

6. Please indicate the number of siblings in your family. If you have none, put “0” in
each category:
Number of Brothers _____ Number of Sisters _____

7. Please provide us with your current email address (to be used only for sending
you either an invitation to participate in the focus group, or for an invitation to
complete the 12 month follow-up survey)

____________________________________________________
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

130
8. Please create a confidential code name for yourself for this survey. You will need
to use it if/when you complete the follow-up survey. We use it to link your responses
to this survey with your responses to later surveys so that we do not need to know
your name. The code name can take any form, but it needs to uniquely identify you –
your initials and birth date could work, for example.

Your code name:_______________________________________
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

9. Approximately what percent of sexual assaults reported to the police do you think
involve acquaintances (two people who know each other)?
o Less than 25%
o 25 – 50%
o 51 – 75%
o More than 75%

10. How often do you think drugs and/or alcohol are involved in sexual assaults
involving acquaintances?
o Never
o Sometimes, but not very often
o Often
o Almost always

11. How often do you think weapons (guns, knives, etc.) are involved in sexual
assaults?
o Less than 25%
o 25 – 50%
o 51 – 75%
o More than 75%

12. How many times in the last 30 days have you had intimate sexual contact or
sexual intercourse (oral, anal, and/or vaginal)?
o None
o One time
o 2 – 5 times
o 6 – 10 times
o 11 or more times

131
13. Within the LAST SCHOOL YEAR, how often have you had sexual activity
when you were unsure whether or not your partner was willing?
o Never
o Once
o More than once
o N/A – no sexual activity

14. Within the LAST SCHOOL YEAR, how often have you attempted to convince
someone to have sexual activity when he or she was unwilling?
o Never
o Once
o More than once
o N/A – no sexual activity

15. If/When you do engage in sexual activity, how often do you drink alcohol before
engaging in the activity?
o Never
o Once
o More than once
o N/A – no sexual activity

16. If/When you do engage in sexual activity, how often do you engage in sexual
activity with someone who has been drinking?
o Never
o Once
o More than once
o N/A – no sexual activity

Please give your opinion about the following comments using the following scale:
1 - strongly agree, 2 - agree, 3 - agree somewhat, 4 - neutral, 5 - disagree somewhat,
6 - disagree, 7 - strongly disagree

17. I need to ask for my partner’s consent for sex every time I want it.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

18. I stop sexual activity when asked, even if I am already sexually aroused.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

132
19. When I hear a negative sexual comment about women, I speak up and object.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

20. When I witness a male “hitting on” a woman and I know she doesn’t want it, I
intervene.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

21. When I witness a situation in which a female may end up being taken advantage
of, I intervene.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

22. If a woman wears a sexy dress she is asking for sex.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

23. If a woman asks a man out on a date then she is definitely interested in having
sex.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

24. The degree of a woman’s resistance should be a major force in determining if
rape has occurred.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

25. If a woman lets a man buy her dinner or pay for a movie or drinks, she owes him
sex.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

26. It is ok to pressure a date to drink alcohol in order to improve one’s chances of
having sex with that date.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

27. Women often lie about being raped to get back at their dates.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

133
28. In most cases when a woman was raped she was asking for it.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

29. If it is a “real” rape, a victim will report it to the police
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

30. Any healthy woman can successfully resist a rapist if she really wants to
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

31. A man is entitled to sexual intercourse if his partner first agreed to it, but at the
last moment says “no”.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

32. A man can control his behavior no matter how sexually aroused he feels.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

33. A woman can control her behavior no matter how sexually aroused she feels.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

34. It looks worse for a woman to be drunk than for a man to be drunk.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

35. A husband is never justified in hitting his wife.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

36. Have you ever known someone who was a victim of a sexual assault, that is,
someone who was forced to engage in sex against his or her will?
o Yes
o No
o Unsure

134
37. How much of a problem is sexual assault on the USC campus?
o Not a problem at all
o Of concern, but a relatively minor problem
o A moderate problem
o A very large problem

Thank you!

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study assesses the correlations of participation in a prevention program, Men Creating Attitudes for Rape-free Environments (Men CARE), and participants’ attitudes and behavior toward sexual violence. The t-tests were used to determine the association, either by the intervention or the cohort, on attitudes and behaviors between the groups, across student affiliation and ethnicity. After the primary statistical analysis, it appeared that the workshop was having an influence on participants’ attitudes about and behavior toward rape. The result demonstrates that the workshop is helpful in decreasing rape myth acceptance, increasing knowledge of sexual violence, increasing pro-social bystander attitudes, and increasing bystander efficacy.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Program content in a men-only sexual assault prevention program: the relationship between factual knowledge, familiarity with a victim, and self-reported behavior

PDF

Who do we tell? School violence and reporting behavior among native Hawaiian high school students

PDF

Sexual violence prevention on college campus as a Clery Act requirement: perceptions from the field

PDF

Student willingness to report violence in secondary schools

PDF

The role of acculturation in Asian Americans' attitudes towards domestic violence and of male privilege as a mediator in placing blame

PDF

The effects of a series of after school family writing workshops on students' writing achievement and attitudes

PDF

The effects of peer helping on participants' perceptions of school climate, school connectedness, and school violence

PDF

Supporting sexual assault survivors through on campus education/liaison programs: a descriptive case study

PDF

Evaluating how education faculty spend their time at a private research university

PDF

Bystander intervention training & the culture of sexual assault on college campuses

PDF

Examination of sun awareness behavior, knowledge, and attitudes before and after a sun awareness program in 4th to 8th grade students

PDF

Effects of progestin-only long-acting reversible contraception on metabolic markers in obese women

PDF

The graduate school experience: exploring help-seeking behaviors of female South Asian international graduate alumni after experiencing sexual harassment or sexual assault

PDF

The impact of family violence on children: an exploratory study

PDF

A sociocultural and developmental approach to intimate partner violence among a sample of Hispanic emerging adults

PDF

The influence of counselors and high school organization on the selection of participants for a dual credit program

PDF

Comparing the effectiveness of online and face-to-face classes among California community college students

PDF

A closer look at intention to use condoms and risky sexual behaviors among homeless people: application of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior

PDF

Effects of near-roadway air pollution exposure on obesity, obesity-related behavior, and neurobehavioral deficits during peripuberty

PDF

Red flags: youth at-risk and the making of gender-based violence prevention

Asset Metadata

Creator Liu, En-Hsien (author)

Core Title A study of a university-based men-only prevention program (Men CARE): effect on attitudes and behaviors related to sexual violence

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/20/2010

Defense Date 06/01/2010

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,prevention programs,rape,sexual violence

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora A. (committee chair), Fischer, Linda A. (committee member), Melguizo, Tatiana (committee member)

Creator Email eliu@usc.edu,enhsien@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3200

Unique identifier UC1304853

Identifier etd-Liu-3419 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-352153 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3200 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Liu-3419.pdf

Dmrecord 352153

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Liu, En-Hsien

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu