Open Access: Sexual Assault Resistance Education's Benefits for Survivors of Attempted and Completed Rape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of the Enhanced Assess, Acknowledge, Act (EAAA) program in reducing victimization and impacting other outcomes (mediators of program effects) was demonstrated in a randomized controlled trial. A planned analysis showed that program effects on sexual assault were not significantly different for survivors of completed rape and other women. The present article investigated whether the impact of EAAA on incidence of rape and attempted rape and on the mediators of EAAA’s effectiveness (e.g., situational risk detection, direct resistance, self-defense self-efficacy) was strengthened or weakened for women with a history of victimization (i.e., history of rape, attempted rape, or neither). EAAA’s impact on self-blame for women who experienced rape after program participation was also assessed. Data from 851 women who received either EAAA or a control intervention were examined. Regardless of victimization history, participants benefited from EAAA to some degree (28%–85% relative risk reduction). Prior victimization was not a significant moderator of the variables that mediate EAAA’s effectiveness, suggesting EAAA functions similarly for women regardless of victimization history. Finally, women who were raped post-intervention blamed themselves significantly less after taking EAAA than women in the control group. This effect was found both for rape survivors and women with no history of victimization but not for attempted rape survivors. These results contribute to the #MeToo movement(s) by showing the power of feminist resistance education as well as areas where program adaptation or boosters are needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".