“It’s Cool to Care about Sexual Violence”

“My Jaw Dropped:” Making Sexual Assault a Personal Issue

The men in this study identified one of the primary motivations for their participation in these groups was a personal issue, such as knowing someone who had been assaulted. This motivation falls in line with Casey and Smith’s (2010) finding that men’s exposure to a sensitizing experience is one of the initial pathways to men’s involvement in antiviolence against women work. It helps create the empathy that prior research has shown as necessary to affect attitudinal and behavioral change in regard to sexual assault and provides the personal link that creates the sense of being a stakeholder for many men. Indeed, for over three-quarters of the men in our sample, personal issues were a motivating factor for becoming involved in the antirape organization. Seven of the men explained that hearing personal stories from female victims helped influence factor their decision to join an antirape group. An additional ten men personally knew someone who had been sexually assaulted, and three mentioned their concern for women in their lives. Harold, a senior, illustrated the power of this motivation,

Lonnie, another senior, recounted a similar experience,

Henry, also a senior, discussed his reaction to a close friend’s disclosure of victimization,

In each case, these three men not only pointed to their personal connection to someone who had been assaulted as a motivation to action, they also recounted their general ignorance of the issue prior to these disclosures and a lack of skills related to handling such disclosures when they do occur. These stories illustrate what is a common situation for many men: prior to being confronted by someone who had been victimized, they had never given the issue of sexual violence much thought. Indeed, with the exception of three men, who all coincidentally attended the same school that had institutionalized a freshman orientation focused on sexual assault, all of the men in our study spoke about the lack of awareness of the issue among men in general that leaves them unequipped to deal with the issue when confronted with it. The fact that only three of our participants had been part of any formalized discussion related to sexual assault prior to a personal disclosure is telling and reinforces the idea that sexual violence is, fundamentally, a woman’s problem.

Without question, we feel that engaging men in the conversation is a necessary and important step. Yet, as far as policy and programmatic implications are concerned, it is neither possible nor preferable to rely on this personal link in order to engage men and foster empathy on their part. A primary reason for this is that such reliance still leaves men unequipped to effectively and supportively respond to disclosures when they do occur. Moreover, without this skill set in place, one could argue that the potential for such disclosures to occur would be lessened for fear, on the part of the female victim, of how the man might react. This is why many programs attempt to build empathy by centering on, or including, the stories of victims. This approach accounts for engaging men and can be effective (seven of the men said that hearing stories about women’s victimization on campus, whether they were friends, classmates, or strangers helped motivate them to join), yet they are not necessarily ideal. Effectively, this approach places the onus for increasing men’s knowledge and empathy related to sexual assault on those who have been victimized. Obviously, there are those who are more than willing to share their personal stories and are quite effective and transformational educators. Still, this approach represents only one strategy used to engage men in the discussion toward preventing sexual violence. Aside from sexual assault becoming a personal issue via disclosure, our research uncovered three additional themes related to men’s involvement in these types of programs that represent the major contributions of this article. These themes are the approach of the program, who is doing the approaching, and the social context that the program fosters.

“We Don’t Blame You:” The Importance of the Approach

Sexual assault prevention programs that show greatest effectiveness at generating attitudinal and behavioral changes approach men as potential allies, not as potential rapists. Whether or not men have ever committed a sexually coercive act, the fact remains most men do not view themselves as potential rapists and are prone to rejecting educational interventions that focus on men as potential perpetrators. Conversely, men respond more positively when approached as potential helpers (Scheel et al. 2001). Not only does such an approach preempt any potential defensiveness to the topic on the part of participants, it also renders men stakeholders in what has traditionally seemed to them a topic that only affects women. For instance, one respondent, Geoff, indicated that not seeing oneself as stakeholder is a primary obstacle to changing men’s attitudes and/or behaviors:

One successful way that men are rendered stakeholders in these programs is by focusing on male-on-male rapes as opposed to male-on-female. Research has shown that casting the male in the role of victim leads to significant increases in empathy as well as declines in rape myth acceptance and men’s likelihood of raping women (Foubert 2000; Foubert and Marriott 1997; Foubert and McEwen 1998; Gilbert, Heesacker, and Gannon 1991; Schewe and O’Donohue 1993). Some (Davis 1999; Lee 2010; Scarce 1999) have expressed concerns over utilizing this approach and its potential to use homophobia as a foundation for empathy. In light of these concerns, Berkowitz (2002) has suggested that programs can enhance victim empathy by including both male and female victim perspectives. Still, the men in our study gave us insight as to why this particular approach might be effective in, at least, initially engaging men in the discussion:

In this sense, then, the video is used toward engaging men in a discussion that they have traditionally felt had nothing to do with them and to give them an opportunity to empathize with a victim of a crime with which they have a limited understanding.

Another respondent, Trevor, discussed how the development of this empathy can then translate into behavior;

Other men expressed the importance of this nonconfrontational, alliance-building approach but also indicated that something more may be involved. Drew remarked that,

This represents the other component of the approach that makes such prevention efforts effective: the fact that these male-directed programs are delivered by other men.

“When Men Talk, It’s ‘Us’, It’s ‘We,’”: The Importance of the Approacher

When we asked our respondents what they believed was “the best way to get male students involved in the prevention of acquaintance rape,” most of the men in our study emphasized how “having men talk to other men” was one of the key and most effective components of the groups. We also asked them if it made a difference if the information was given by females or males. They all gave several reasons why men would be more receptive to hearing these messages from other men as opposed to women. While Harold contended that men are just “more comfortable being open with each other when it’s just guys,” Ralphy attributed at least part of the difference to the novelty of the message/messenger combination:

Clark and Marc both talked about the more typical message/messenger combination and how that is typically received:

Other respondents point to this tendency to pay greater attention to men as a reflection of male privilege:

While all of the above quotations are couched in terms of why the “typical male” would react more favorably to a male presenter, it is interesting to note that the men in this program also seem to be affected by the norms and evaluations of their male peers to a greater degree than they are by those of females. For example, when asked about their friends’ reactions to their participation in a male-led rape prevention group, more than half of the men described only the feedback they had received from male friends. This may be due to the fact that, among those who specifically described reactions by female friends, such reactions tended to be mainly positive while the reactions of male friends tended to be mixed, ranging from supportive, indifferent, and questioning of their motivations, to dismissive and insulting. Still, it is interesting that the majority of the men tended to focus solely on the feedback of their male friends.

One potential explanation for these findings is the peer relationship of the men in the group. While Anderson and Whitson’s (2005) meta-analysis of sexual assault prevention programs found that those led by professionals were more effective at positively changing rape-related attitudes and behavioral intentions, other research not included in this meta-analysis (Audrey, Holliday, and Campbell 2006; Clements and Buczkiewicz 1993; DiClemente 1993; Finn 1981; Jarvis 1993; Milburn 1995; Perry 1989; Sloane and Zimmer 1993; Woodcock, Stenner, and Ingham 1992) shows peer-led programs to be more successful.

This discrepancy in the research may be a result of two things. First, what is being measured. Research has shown that while nonpeer/adult educators are more effective than peer educators at transferring information (Mellanby et al. 2001), peer educators are more effective at transferring norms, values, and attitudes (Audrey, Holliday, and Campbell 2006; Mellanby et al. 2001; Milburn 1995; Sloane and Zimmer 1993). Along with the family, peer-friendship groups are the most important of “those groups which control individuals’ major sources of reinforcement and punishment and expose them to behavioral models and normative definitions” (Akers et al. 1979, 638). Moreover, not only does peer education positively affect the audience, research has also indicated that peer education has a self-reinforcing effect on the educators in that they tend to absorb and commit to the messages that they deliver in the prevention programs (Kelly et al.1991; National Hemophilia Foundation 1994; O’Hara et al. 1996; Rickert, Jay, and Gottlieb 1991; Slap et al. 1991). These peer effects have been seen in programs on topics including smoking prevention, alcohol and drug use prevention, as well as forms of sexual education, including the encouragement of condom use (Audrey, Holliday, and Campbell 2006; Clements and Buczkiewicz 1993; DiClemente 1993; Jarvis 1993; Perry 1989; Woodcock, Stenner, and Ingham 1992).

Second, if we extend our operationalization of peer networks to include not only status but also gender in this sense, we can find another potential explanation for the discrepancy in the research listed above. Kimmel (2010) has discussed the homosocial nature of men’s relationships and its impact on the construction of a heterosexist and sexist masculinity (see also Schwartz and DeKeseredy 1997). At the same time, however, we must also see the homosocial nature of men’s relationships as an entry way, or starting point, for reconstructing masculinity toward nonviolence. In other words, if male peer support serves to encourage and promote violence against women, then male peers who confront and openly oppose sexist attitudes and behavior may help discourage and possibly prevent such violence (DeKeseredy and Schwartz 2002; Schwartz and DeKeseredy 1997). Indeed, recent research has found that perceived peer attitudes toward sexual assault were a significant predictor of willingness to intervene (Brown & Messman-Moore 2010). Thus, the personal issue or the increased empathy may provide the desire to “do something” but it is the nonconfrontational, ally-building approach by other men that provides a structured outlet for this desire. Moreover, this peer effect is also reflective of what may be seen as the most powerful contribution of this study; the extension of the peer influence into the creation of a new social context that gives men cultural permission to “do something” about sexual assault.

“A . . . Thing that Men Rarely Get to Do:” The Creation of a New Social Context

Many of the men in our study discussed how the homosocial characteristic of the programs was part of their appeal. This finding is supported by narrative analysis (Vladutiu, Martin, and Macy 2011) that has shown single-sexed programs affecting greater behavioral change in participants than those programs directed at mixed-sex audiences. Likewise, some meta-analysis has shown single-sexed programs also result in greater attitudinal change than their mixed-sex counterparts (Brecklin and Forde 2001). The meta-analysis conducted by Anderson and Whitson (2005), however, finds the evidence for same sexed programs to be more complicated. While the authors found larger effect sizes for males in mixed-sex programs, they were unable to find any statistically significant difference between outcomes for males in single-sexed versus mixed-sex programs. As for females, the authors found that both mixed- and single-sexed programs resulted positive attitudinal change, though the effect size for the latter was not statistically significant and was based on only three studies. In terms of behavioral intentions, however, Anderson and Whitson (2005) found tentative evidence (based on only four studies) that single-sexed programs were effective in producing positive change whereas mixed-group settings were not. The evidence gathered in this study extends our understanding of the debate in that it operationalizes the peer effect as one involving both gender and status.

Many of the men described the all-male aspect as the main reason they joined the group and 84 percent of the men stated their feeling that, to get male students involved, it would be more effective if the messenger were male as opposed to female. While most research to date has focused on attitudinal change or the projection of, and plans for, future behavioral change; here we have evidence of behavioral change in the recruitment and participation of men to these programs. Thus, it becomes intervention on a larger scale that not only affects one’s immediate peer group but also acquaintances and program participants.

In a comment that was echoed by the majority of our respondents, Ralphy discussed his motivation to join,

Sammy reinforced this sentiment by explaining the power of the peer effect in recruiting members,

While groups relied heavily on nomination of new members by current members (as P. J. stated, It’s difficult to judge a man’s character by a résumé), and over half of the men responding knew members of the group prior to joining, the peer effect was also present among men who knew each other only as acquaintances or classmates. For example, Ari noted that he saw in particular members “examples of . . .  [what] I wanted to be on campus: student leaders, outspoken for a good cause, etc.” In this way, peer exposure affects not only the attitudes of program participants but the recruitment of peers to the program functions as a self-replicating and perpetual peer-based intervention proven to affect both attitudinal and behavioral change. At schools where the group was well established, active, and strong, the self-replicating mechanism of peer recruitment tended to be the strongest and the status and prestige of the group and its members increased exponentially. That is, as the reputation of the group grew, recruitment of influential peers became easier which, in turn, helped further grow the group’s reputation. Ralphy discussed this process in recounting the role the positive reputation of the group had on his decision to join and recruit his friends:

Trevor made similar remarks:

Oscar, a junior, also echoed the importance of the influential status of a peer recruiter and educator,

Together, these comments indicate the importance of the charismatic leader (Weber 1948) in the recruitment of young men to the program. As Casey and Smith (2010, 969) remark, the “project of engaging men and encouraging them to view themselves as allies is therefore perhaps best done individually through existing social networks and by admired peers.” If college men can be influenced by a presentation delivered by other men, it is no surprise that this influence might grow and encourage participation when the messenger is a high-status male, an insight consistent with the literature on peer to peer education and opinion leaders (Audrey, Holliday, and Campbell 2006).

Research also indicates that the continued involvement of peer educators with the men they are trying to reach is key to changing norms and behaviors (Stein 2007). Instead of being limited to a one-time presentation, this charismatic peer effect of the programs shifted, by way of recruitment, to a continuing relationship. Trevor expressed how these normative organizations became a new kind of social network/peer group that addressed the expressive and social needs of the men involved,

Robert made similar comments about the difference between this new social context and the normal homosocial relationships to which men are subject,

Together, these stories help illustrate the fact that these organizations become self-sustaining in two ways. First, they rely on the power of influential males to draw otherwise reluctant participants into the organization. Yet, these programs also become self-sustaining in that they provide a supportive peer network for the men involved. Thus, aside from serving the manifest normative functions, participation in organizations such as these also operate to meet the expressive and social needs of the men involved.