Increasing Sexual Assault Survivors' Help Seeking Via Advertised Messages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual assault is a common occurrence on Canadian university campuses, yet women who experience sexual assault typically do not seek immediate help. This pattern of silence is problematic because when survivors talk about the assault with someone whose responses are perceived as supportive, their suffering is often alleviated (Campbell, Ahrens, Sefl, Wasco, & Barnes, 2001). This study examined the efficacy of messages designed to encourage sexual assault survivors to seek help. Community members submitted 118 messages designed to encourage help seeking to a poster contest. These were combined with 34 messages gathered from existing sources. Three of these messages were judged to be exemplary by a panel of experts. Women (n = 633) recruited through the university of Windsor and online advertisements were randomly assigned to view one of these three help seeking messages, or to a control group. Reactions to these messages were measured at one week and one month intervals. Women who experienced rape or attempted rape (n = 138) had significantly less positive attitudes, subjective norms, and intention towards help seeking, endorsed less help seeking behaviour and encouraged a friend to seek less help than participants who did not experience sexual assault (n = 186). Exposure to a poster designed to increase help seeking behaviour did not improve beliefs about help seeking and did not increase actual help seeking behaviour. Exposure to one poster did encourage hypothetical help seeking regardless of level of distress. Encouragingly, exposure to another poster did increase actual help seeking among participants with high levels of self-blame. Some improvements in hypothetical advice to a friend were noted. Findings suggest that emphasizing a message of solidarity (e.g. you are not alone) may motivate some changes in help seeking behaviour. More effective content for future posters is discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".