“You Should Have Known Better”: The Social Ramifications of Victimization-Focused Sexual Assault Prevention Tips
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Common sexual assault prevention strategies emphasize individuals’ responsibility to protect themselves from victimization. Using a feminist theoretical approach, the present study was the first to assess the unintended, negative consequences that result when taking a victimization-focused approach to sexual assault prevention. Participants ( N = 321) were primarily heterosexual, Caucasian undergraduate students from a Western postsecondary institution. A between-participants experimental design was employed, whereby participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (a) victimization-focused prevention tips ( n = 114; e.g., “Be alert and aware of your surroundings”); (b) perpetration-focused prevention tips ( n = 103; e.g., “Don’t slip any unwanted substances into drinks at bars or parties”); or (c) study tips for control purposes ( n = 104; e.g., “Take a ten-minute break every hour”). Following prevention tip exposure, participants read a sexual assault vignette and completed measures of victim culpability and several related constructs (i.e., ambivalent sexism, belief in a just world, and rape myth acceptance). Results indicated that participants who received victimization-focused prevention tips attributed significantly more blame to the victimized woman in the vignette than participants in both the control condition and perpetration-focused condition. Based on these results, it is recommended that social institutions further evaluate the efficacy and unintended consequences of prevalent victimization-focused sexual assault prevention strategies. Specifically, institutions should consider the implications of endorsing strategies that are evidenced to enhance victim blame, thereby perpetuating rape culture. Prevention strategies that engage bystanders and seek to prevent perpetration should be considered as an alternative approach.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".