Challenging Dogma

Friday, April 27, 2012

The Failure of the Traditional Approach to Sexual Violence Prevention – Charlotte Allard


Sexual violence is extremely prevalent, yet has only relatively recently been recognized as a public health issue (1). Sexual violence is far too common among men and women; however, it disproportionately affects women. Research shows that “nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives” (2). The true prevalence is likely much higher due to the evidence that the majority of cases are never reported (3). Furthermore, “according to the U.S. Department of Justice, an estimated 91% of the victims of rape and sexual assault are female and 9% are male,” and nearly all perpetrators of sexual violence are male (4). Although sexual violence does not affect all groups in equal proportion, it encompasses individuals of all ages, races, religions, and abilities, and is associated with potentially long-lasting and harmful sequelae. In fact, “violence often begins at an early age and commonly leads to negative health consequences across the lifespan” (2). Consequences can include numerous physical ailments, mental health issues, and unhealthy and risky health behaviors/habits as well as increased likelihood for future victimization (4, 5). Due to the high prevalence and potentially devastating outcomes, the area of sexual violence deserves public health attention and demands effort be made towards prevention.

Traditionally, sexual violence prevention campaigns have focused on safety precautions women can take to help protect themselves from potentially dangerous situations that could lead to sexual assault. Police departments and universities in particular, including Boston University Police Department, have consistently distributed warnings for street smarts and safety tips targeted at what individuals, usually women, should do to “avoid becoming a rape victim” (6). Tips include: never walk alone, stay in lighted areas, avoid shortcuts/alleys/bushy areas, have a charged cell phone, avoid carrying too many items or any at all if possible, avoid stairs, use escort/security services, be aware of surrounding at all times, carry a whistle, do not use electronic device headphones, lock car doors and windows if driving, etc. (6-12). Some prevention suggestions even go to the extent of dictating dress. One police department listed “dress for ease of movement” as a rape prevention strategy for safety on the streets (9). Another police officer was quoted saying that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized” (8). Comments like these imply dressing in a particular way can help women avoid or escape potential acts of sexual violence.

The use of whistles, commonly referred to as “rape whistles,” have been endorsed. For example, the University of Illinois, distributes whistles to students as part of their Whistle-Stop program (10). Similarly, the “Rape Victim Advocacy Program is launching a new program called WhistleSAFE™ on the University of Iowa campus” (12.) Interestingly, The University of Texas at San Antonio Police Department has made whistles available free for only female students, faculty, and staff as part of their Whistle Defense Program (11). What all of these prevention strategies have in common is focusing on what one woman should or should not do at one moment to help protect herself from potential sexual assault. While some of these tactics may be wise or helpful in certain circumstances or for general personal safety, research reveals some major flaws in this approach as an effective way to prevent sexual violence as a public health problem.

Individual-level Behavior Change Model

One of the initial flaws of this approach to sexual violence prevention is that the focus is on the individual. Traditionally, social science and behavior change theories have “tended to focus on identifying, quantifying, and understanding the impact of individual-level determinants of specific health behaviors” (13). These theories have supported this idea of understanding what actions and behaviors an individual can do in order to control their own outcomes. Because of this popular social science approach, “individual-level theories have dominated health promotion efforts” (13). Sexual violence prevention is no exception. The warnings, suggestions, and safety tips concentrate on each person’s individual behavior.

By using an individual-level behavior change model, the approach ignores the role of social, environmental, cultural, and other factors. Instead, it focuses solely on one individual’s actions and how it affects that person’s outcome. One psychologist writes how traditional practice has paid little attention “to the cultural, sociopolitical and economic conditions which set the context for individual health experience and behaviour” (14). Researchers have demonstrated the need to look beyond the individual in order to truly make change on a larger scale. Community-level and/or ecological approaches, which include multidisciplinary efforts, are needed to provide relevant, effective interventions. These types of interventions have the capacity of influencing large numbers of people at the same time and instilling long lasting behavior change to reduce negative health outcomes (13, 14).

Group-level models rule out explaining behavior on an individual level and insist that behavior can only be explained at a group level. Theories using this model work under the premise that an individual cannot be removed from the greater groups of which they are a part (15). Effective interventions take into account group or social factors of a target population in order to instill behavior change. The community context and societal factors that allow sexual violence to continue and exist in the first place need to be addressed in order to prevent it. Therefore, narrowly focusing on attempting to change each individual’s personal actions to reduce the prevalence of sexual violence among the population is ineffective.

Focus on Women and Potential for Victim Blaming

The traditional approach to sexual violence prevention does not focus on all individuals, but rather, it focuses primarily on women. This method is intrinsically victim blaming and views negative outcomes as a “failure of the individual” (14). Individual-level theories of behaviors change “posit the individual as the key decision maker responsible for his or her health,” and assume that “individuals can implement changes to enhance their health” (13). Individual-based theories also assume that individuals value their health highly enough to change behaviors to avoid negative outcomes, that their behavior is under their control, and that beliefs and attitudes dictate behavior (13). Based on these assumptions, people value their health and should therefore not want to experience sexual violence. They should then change their own behavior to avoid becoming a victim by following the safety precautions suggested in current interventions. Since their behavior is under their control and affected by beliefs, people who believe sexual violence is bad should, in theory, have no problem controlling their behavior to avoid it. This strategy does not explain why sexual violence remains highly prevalent.

The concept of “individualism is a deeply embedded value in North American and western European societies,” which explains the commonly held belief: “if I take the right actions, I can stay healthy” (14). If this belief were accepted, it could also be interpreted as taking the wrong actions can lead to unhealthy or negative consequence. Therefore, if bad outcomes happen, it must be a result of an individual action. However, “over concern with personal responsibility for health can lead to victim-blaming and an atmosphere in which ‘we are worrying ourselves half to death’” (14). This “‘tendency to overstate the impact of personal behavior on health’ could feed victim-blaming ethos which is already strong in western societies” (14). This is dangerous territory because it insinuates victims of sexual violence must have done something wrong. This view places all of the responsibility on the victim. If behavior dictates outcome and individuals can control their own behavior based on their beliefs, it means that victims of sexual violence must not have done the right actions to avoid it or must not believe it is bad.

Focusing prevention on the victim, which in this case is mostly women, is a backwards approach. If one looks at another public health problem, it becomes obvious that this approach is unlikely to be successful. For example, in order to prevent drunk driving and the related dangerous consequences, are the interventions intended to tell people (the potential victims) how to avoid getting hit by a drunk driver (the potential offender)? Usually not; instead, interventions focus on preventing people from drinking and driving to protect themselves and others and avoid becoming a potential offender. With sexual violence, it makes much more sense to focus prevention on stopping people from perpetrating acts of sexual violence rather than how to avoid becoming a victim. The responsibility needs to be shifted to the perpetrator. Therefore, because nearly all perpetrators are men, it is essential that interventions include and be directed at men. Using women as the target population in sexual violence prevention is missing a huge piece of the public health issue and is therefore an ineffective approach.

Negatively Framed and Fear-inducing Messages

A common theme running through the sexual violence prevention campaigns is negative framing and fear-inducing messages. These interventions typically spell out a list of numerous actions a woman should take to avoid becoming a victim of sexual assault. Not only does is put the responsibility on the woman, it is intimidating to take in all of the tips such as how to dress, what to carry, where to walk, and who to be with. However, instead of portraying the messages in an empowering manner, they are displayed in a negative tone. This tone is fear-producing and works under the assumption that if the audience (potential female victims) knows how serious and scary the streets are, they will take the necessary precautions to protect themselves. The assumption is that because of the severity of these messages, the individual will feel the likelihood of the outcome (in this case sexual assault) and become “motivated to control the danger and consciously think about ways to remove or lessen the threat” (16). This assumption implies that disseminating threatening messages about the prevalence and severity of sexual violence and suggestions for how to avoid dangerous situations motivated all women to protect themselves. If this technique worked, sexual violence would not be as common as it remains today.

Fear appeal messages have been used to address several public health issues such as condom use, smoking cessation, exercise behavior, and various other safety and health behaviors (16) However, negative framing and fear messages have been shown to backfire (16, 17). These messages have the potential to produce “outcomes related to rejection of the message (i.e., defensive avoidance, reactance, denial)” (16). If message are delivered in a tone that threatens freedom, which many of the safety tips do, individuals are likely to rebel in order to restore freedom (18). If people decide to ignore all precautions as a means to rebel, this could potentially put them in even more dangerous situations.

Researchers have demonstrated the powerful role framing can play on influencing opinion and the decision-making process (17, 19-21). Positive messages of empowerment to encourage change would be more effective than negative messages attempting to produce fear in order to control behavior. In addition, “living in a state of fear does not make for mental well-being” (22). Furthermore, even if these fear-inciting messages did produce behavior change it still would not prevent the majority of sexual violence incidences. These traditional messages tell women how to protect themselves from strangers in public places. In reality, “the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports that 6 in 10 rape or sexual assault victims said that they were assaulted by an intimate partner, relative, friend or acquaintance” (5). Other reports demonstrate “between 62% and 84% of survivors knew their attacker” (23). Therefore, street safety is not going to help someone when they are in the privacy of their own home with a person with whom they have or had a relationship. Interventions need to address the most frequent situations and perpetrators of sexual violence not the stereotypical picture these messages have painted.

Lastly, the tips are based on the assumption that they will actually help in a situation of potential sexual violence. The suggestions of carrying and using a rape whistles, for example, assumes that a women will at all times be carrying a rape whistle and will use it when needed. Furthermore, it assumes that someone will hear it and respond appropriately to stop the sexual violence from beginning or continuing. There are countless missteps that could take place. Even if used correctly, whistles have received much criticism for being ineffective (9, 24).

Improved Intervention

In order to address the public health issue of sexual violence, I have designed an alternative intervention. This intervention strives for prevention in a more widespread, inclusive, and empowering manner than the traditional approach. Several studies and reports reveal sexual violence as a prevalent issue among college women (4, 5, 22, 23, 25-27). In fact, “research estimates that 20–25% of female undergraduates experience attempted or completed rape during their college careers” (27). Due to these findings, my intervention is designed to take place on a college campus. The intervention is multidimensional and consists of bystander intervention training, educational workshops, and a social norms campaign.

Bystander intervention “seeks to engage university students as bystanders in prosocial behaviors to act to prevent sexual violence on their campus” (27). The purpose of the bystander “model is to help all community members become more sensitive to issues of sexual violence and teach them skills to intervene with the intent to prevent assaults from occurring and provide support to survivors who may disclose” (28).
Part of my intervention would be mandatory bystander training for all incoming students. The training could be incorporated as an orientation activity so that every student is made aware of the program and expectations on campus right at the beginning of becoming a member of the community. By including training for all students, it sets the tone that sexual violence will not be tolerated and that everyone has a part to play. It demonstrates that the college administration is making sexual violence prevention a priority. The responsibility is placed on all community members rather than potential victim or perpetrators, which reduces victim blaming. The bystander training would involve ways to intervene reactively (when risk to a victim is present or has occurred) and proactively (when no risk present)(29). For example, one prevention strategy teaches skills to directly intervene, distract one of the individuals, or delegate the situation to another person (30). The training would be interactive and led by staff and student leaders who had been trained facilitators. It would focus primarily on sexual violence in order to concisely teach what signs to look for and what resources to use.

Although all students, male and female, would participate in bystander intervention training, I would also include a breakout session where men and women were split. This would give the opportunity to be surrounded by a group of other men and women to discuss gender-related components or aspects that students did not feel comfortable bringing up in a co-ed setting. These education sessions would serve as primary prevention to prevent perpetration of victimization from happening in the first place (1). The training and sessions would empower students to become change agents as well as address “attitudes about sexual assault, the impact of gender roles, healthy relationships, consent, conflict resolution, respecting personal boundaries, and skill building for these topics” (1). The focus would not be on raising awareness of the issue of sexual violence or how to avoid it, but would instead address the root causes and how to actually help to reduce the prevalence by teaching the appropriate skills.

As a second component of my intervention, I would include on-going groups for male students. These small, peer-led, educational workshops would happen several times throughout each academic year with men of mixed class years. The sessions would be interactive and provide a safe space to openly share feelings, challenge the understanding of masculinity, and discuss ways and teach skills that men can use to help to reduce and prevent sexual violence, particularly against women (31). For example, discussion topics would include “adherence to societal norms supportive of sexual violence, male superiority, and male sexual entitlement” (1). These sessions would strengthen and deepen some of the ideas and skills addressed in the bystander training and educational workshops and engage in additional topics.

Furthermore, a campus-wide social norms campaign would reinforce these concepts. The campaign would market sexual violence prevention in a positive, empowering manner and aim to change perceptions of social norms. Social norms theory is based on the idea that people tend to overestimate negative/unhealthy and underestimate positive/healthy behaviors of their peers (32). In the case of sexual health, “research has documented that male college students overestimate the amount of sex their male peers have and the degree to which their peers support coercive behaviors, while underestimating the importance of consensual sex to their friends” (33). Additional research with college populations has revealed “the social norms approach can be applied to the prevention of sexual violence by correcting these misperceptions of group norms to decrease problem behaviors or increase healthy behaviors” (1). Therefore, the campaign would strive to correct these misperceptions and reveal accurate norms in a positive manner.

In addition, the media such as events, posters, and publications would demonstrate all members’ ability and responsibility to contribute to the prevention of sexual violence in their college community. Instead of list of things women should do to avoid becoming a victim, the campaign would suggest ways bystanders could intervene (i.e. direct, distract, delegate). Also, certain parts of the campaign would target men. An example of a message would be “most men are not perpetrators of sexual assault.” Campaigns that use messages such as “These Hands Don’t Hurt” or “Real Men Don’t Rape” are along the same lines of encouraging positive social norms (34).

Group-level Behavior Change

Numerous studies have supported the use of bystander intervention as an influential component of sexual violence prevention (27-29, 31, 33, 35, 36). First, the intervention is at the community-level as opposed to an individual-level behavior change model. A group-level model is utilized to affect a large number of people at the same time instead of focusing on individuals and individual behavior. Similarly, the social norms theory, which is the foundation of the social norms campaign, is a group-level behavior change model. These interventions attempt to change the culture and norms of the community by incorporating the members and social factors of the target population. These theories recognize the individual as a part of large social network and take into account the importance of group/community and situation/environment. In order to truly work towards prevention of sexual violence social and environmental contributors need to be considered (1). Community-level interventions, including changing social norms by social marketing, have been supported as effective strategies (1, 13, 28, 33). Research demonstrates success of and need for continued multi-level intervention approaches that include community and peer level prevention of sexual assault. Bystander intervention and social norms campaigns fit the criteria (33).

According to the social network theory, disease and conditions spread by social networks not by individuals. Therefore, public health interventions should intervene in the social network with group-level behavior change (37). Network analysis had been used in public health “to study primarily disease transmission, especially for HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases; information transmission, particularly for diffusion of innovations; the role of social support and social capital; the influence of personal and social networks on health behavior,” etc. (38). This type of analysis reveals how incredibly influential the role of social networks is in behaviors and ultimately health. A college community is an ideal example of a social network, particularly due to the susceptibility college students are to social influences. Additionally, because most sexual assault happens between members of the same social network, this makes college an appropriate and effective venue for the sexual violence intervention.

The Inclusion of Men

Research demonstrates the necessity for the inclusion of men, as partners with women, in sexual violence intervention and prevention (1, 27, 28, 31, 36, 39). One article points out that “men should take responsibility in preventing violence against women” because of the harm is causes to women their lives, but also to their own lives (31). As it stands, violence against women “perpetuates negative stereotypes of men based on the actions of a few” especially when women are afraid of potential victimization (31). Including men as a target audience for sexual violence prevention reduces victim blaming and shifts some of the responsibility to the population most likely to perpetrate acts of sexual violence. While it is important not to blame all men for the actions of a few, it is imperative that action is taken to at the very least include them in partnership (31). My proposed intervention makes sexual violence a community issue, not a women’s issue.

Furthermore, men can play a critical role in prevention because “while only a minority of men are violent, all men can have an influence on the culture and environment that allows other men to be perpetrators. For example, men can refuse to be bystanders to other men’s violent behavior” (31). Men are necessary to address and change social norms in the community. Three main ways men can prevent violence against are “by not personally engaging in violence, by intervening against the violence of other men, and by addressing the root causes of violence” (31). With the participation of enough community members, this multilayered approach had the potential to actually prevent and end sexual violence.

Research supports groups/workshops for men only due to the powerful influence men have on each other, the culture that exists between them, and the comfort and reduced embarrassment in being in male-only company (31, 36). Additionally, even though the ultimate goal of interventions is ending sexual violence, prevention program goals are often different for men and women (36). Sexual violence interventions do not need to exclude women entirely, but male contribution together with and apart from women is crucial for the success and impact of the programs.

Shift to Empowerment

Instead of framing sexual violence prevention in a negative manner, my intervention shifts to messages of empowerment. Research has outlined “the need for prevention efforts focused on creating ‘empowering climates’” (28). Creating this type of climate involves changing norms to clearly reflect to all that sexual violence is unacceptable (28). This creation incorporates changing the culture of the community, and all members are involved in this change. Studies have revealed “what motivates individuals to become active in social change movements in their community including a high sense of community and awareness and concern about community problems” (28). My intervention addresses these needs by intervening in a well-define community (college campus), and raising awareness and taking action around the issue of sexual violence. The intervention places “a sense of responsibility and empowerment for ending sexual violence on the shoulders of all community members” (28). Specifically, the bystander intervention model empowers “participants to become agents of change” and “ shift the behaviors of their peers” to change social norms of their community (1). Additionally, “a focus on bystanders targets potential offenders and also empowers the more responsible, nonoffending audience members” (39). Furthermore, “the opportunity for men to hear the attitudes and views of other men is powerful, especially because it empowers men who want to help and provides them with visible allies,” which supports the idea of male-only groups/workshops (31). The trainings and workshops and campaign in the intervention I proposed all provide community members the information and skills to feel and be capable of their role in ending sexual violence.

Instead of treating women like potential victims by telling them what not to do and instilling fear, my intervention gives all involved a sense of control. Studies have shown that when individuals have choices and make decisions they take ownership over their actions and feel more in control over their outcomes (40). Using positive framing and empowerment reduces the potential for psychological reactance. Social influence can threaten individuals’ freedom to make decisions, form opinions, and take actions on their own (18). This can lead to “reactance, a motivational state aimed at restoring the threatened freedom…Literature shows that social influence is more successful when it does not threaten important freedoms” (18). Using empowerment instead of fear-appeal can help to reduce threats to freedom and therefore reactance.

Empowerment theory has been used in psychology and social science research in community-based interventions (41-43). The definition of empowerment involves having control of over one’s life, active participation in one’s community, and understanding one’s environment. The sense of empowerment can be achieved on a community-level (41). The concept of empowerment is what “links individual strengths and competencies…and proactive behaviors to social policy and social change” (41). Consequently, “empowerment theory, research, and intervention link individual well-being with the larger social and political environment” (41). Empowerment is multileveled and relies on the premise that individuals, groups, social factors, and environments have reciprocal relationships (42, 43). It is rooted in positivity and has been shown to lead to positive outcomes and greater life satisfaction, especially when achieved communitywide. The people, programs, and policies matter and affect the overall outcomes. Therefore, it is important to design culturally competent interventions with the target community in mind (42).


Sexual violence is a major public health issue. The traditional approach to sexual violence prevention is inadequate. The interventions are based on individual-level behavior change models, focus narrowly on women, which leads to victim blaming, and are negatively framed with fear appeal. A proposed intervention of bystander intervention, male-only educational workshops, and a social norms campaign would address these concerns. This new intervention would be based on group-level behavior change, include men in prevention, and use empowerment. In the future this type of intervention should be used to more effectively prevent and reduce the prevalence of sexual violence.

1. Lee DS, Guy L, Perry B, Sniffen CK, Mixson SA. Sexual Violence Prevention. The Prevention Researcher, 2007.
2. Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Walters ML, Merrick MT, Chen J, Stevens MR. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011.
3. Linden JA. Care of the Adult Patient after Sexual Assault. New England Journal of Medicine 2011; 365: 834–841.
4. National Sexual Violence Resource Center. Sexual Assault Statistics. http://
5. National Institute of Justice. Victims and Perpetrators. topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/victims-perpetrators.htm.
6. Boston University Police. Sexual Assault. Boston, MA: Boston University.
7. Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network. Avoiding Dangerous Situations. Washington, DC: Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network. http://www.
8. Rush C. Cop Apologizes for ‘Sluts' Remark at Law School. Toronto: Toronto Star.
9. Davis California Police Department. Rape Prevention - Investigations. Davis, CA: City of Davis.
10. Wunderlich R. New Whistles Distributed to Students. Champaign, IL: The Daily Illini. new_whistles_ distributed_to_students.
11. The University of Texas at San Antonio Police Department. Crime Prevention. San Antonio TX: The University of Texas at San Antonio. utsapd/Crime_Prevention/index.html.
12. Rape Victim Advocacy Program. Get Help Now. /get_help_now/.
13. DiClemente RJ, Crosby RA, Kegler MC, eds. Emerging Theories in Health Promotion Practice and Research, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2009.
14. Marks D. Healthy Psychology in Context. Journal of Health Psychology 1996; 1:7–21.
15. Siegel M. Social and Behavioral Science, Boston University. Class, February 23, 2012.
16. Witte K, Allen M. A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeals: Implications for Effective Public Health Campaigns. Health Education & Behavior 2000; 27:591-615.
17. Maheswaran D, Meyers-Levy J. The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement. Journal of Marketing Research 1990; 27:361–367.
18. Silvia P. Deflecting Reactance: The role of similarity in increasing compliance and reducing resistance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 2005; 27:277–284.
19. DeMartino B, Kumaran D, Seymour B, Dolan R. Frames, Biases, and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain. Science 2006; 313:684–687.
20. Ariely D. Predictably Irrational, Revised and Expanded Edition: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. New York, NY: Harper Perennial, 2010.
21. Nelson TW, Oxley ZM, Clawson RA. Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects. Political Behavior 1997; 19:221–246.
22. Norris J. ‘Fresh’ Thoughts on Studying Sexual Assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly 2011; 35:369–374.
23. One in Four. Sexual Assault Statistics. /statistics.php.
24. Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment. Questions About Various Methods and Tools for Self-defense. shtml.
25. Gross AM, Winslett A, Roberts M, Gohm CL. An Examination of Sexual Violence Against College Women. Violence Against Women 2006; 12:288–300.
26. Fisher B, Cullen F, Turner M. The Sexual Victimization of College Women. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2000.
27. Vladutiu CJ, Martin SL, Macy RJ. College- or University-Based Sexual Assault Prevention Programs: A Review of Program Outcomes, Characteristics, and Recommendations. Trauma Violence Abuse 2011; 12:67–86.
28. Banyard VL, Plante EG, Moynihan MM. Bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. Journal of Community Psychology 2004; 32:61-79.
29. McMahon S, Banyard VL. When Can I Help? A Conceptual Framework for the Prevention of Sexual Violence Through Bystander Intervention. Trauma Violence Abuse 2012; 13:3–14.
30. Higher Education Center for Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Violence Prevention. Core Content for Green Dot Prevention Strategy. Higher Education Center for Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Violence Prevention, 2010.
31. Berkowitz A. Working with Men to Prevent Violence Against Women: An Overview (Parts One and Two). VAWnet, 2004.
32. Haines M. Best Practices: Social Norms. Wisconsin Clearinghouse for Prevention Resources, University of Wisconsin.
33. Casey EA, Lindhorst TP. Toward a Multi-Level, Ecological Approach to the Primary Prevention of Sexual Assault Prevention in Peer and Community Contexts. Trauma Violence Abuse 2009; 10:91–114.
34. Andersen G. CWO Takes Back the Night. Pittsburg, PA: The Pitt News.
35. Burn S. A Situational Model of Sexual Assault Prevention through Bystander Intervention. Sex Roles 2009; 60:779–792.
36. Gidycz CA, Orchowski LM, Berkowitz AD. Preventing Sexual Aggression Among College Men: An Evaluation of a Social Norms and Bystander Intervention Program. Violence Against Women 2001; 17:720–742.
37. Siegel M. Social and Behavioral Science, Boston University. Class, April 12, 2012.
38. Luke DA, Harris JK. Network Analysis in Public Health: History, Methods, and Applications. Annual Review of Public Health 2007; 28:69–93.
39. Brown AL, Messman-Moore TL. Personal and Perceived Peer Attitudes Supporting Sexual Aggression as Predictors of Male College Students’ Willingness to Intervene Against Sexual Aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2010; 25:503–517.
40. Langer E. The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1975; 32:311–328.
41. Perkins D, Zimmerman M. Empowerment Theory, Research, and Application. American Journal of Community Psychology 1995; 23:569–579.
42. Rappaport J. Terms of Empowerment/Exemplars of Prevention: Toward a Theory for Community Psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology 1987; 15:121–148.
43. Fawcett S, Paine-Andrews A, Francisco V, Schultz J, Richter K, Lewis R, Williams E, Harris K, Berkley J, Fisher J, Lopez C. Using empowerment Theory in Collaborative Partnerships for Community Health and Development. American Journal of Community Psychology 1995; 23:677–697.

Labels: ,


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home