l A ‘
110M
1.“
7.1

I

     
   

I
I:

I
4 c

1' a. ' , _' 1 '13 13.3.1", 1
' "111111411 11:1. '

- ' , . 111111131?“
" " ' ‘ " - 'I , I ,~ In: ' #11:.
i ‘:= ‘ -;.- .' ' .' ' ' 1'. r .‘ ".iI§III'?:§§151i.‘I11}"

Hz; 1111“: ' I!!!
-. 11‘|,LJ1'%311'1I'11I 1111111115111'1311 ""1"

 
    
   
   
   
           
   

    

~
1

  
  

M_ 1&1?
WA W
:4?
{d
E"
7
3!.
‘2‘
a":
,4
n
:«x
I

“3"

. 11
""1'}1II.'3'III"""'1

   

    

         
      
 
 
  
  
 
 
    
   
   
    
 

 
 
        

  

17 :1 3"}1 1"”!"5‘. H121 3"}(«413'1'9 '1'"; 1.
Va: , H1 ..m "'11" 1w; (3'11: 1"" '
.' “in ' '3'" \ Iiizi'g. 11-1111,: 1,111.1. W11" 15!“ INS-'3 "-"I

1511* ..!1‘%I“'I"‘“I*I 1"“‘1‘5' M11: WWWI' 1313 “if“? I

. E "(1" 45%“? :11?“ 1’1"" :‘(ifi .'!'J3 V 1‘13“” affix: '14§Q.,‘é;i rm: ' "'
' n X‘- ‘3' 113111 31.111131 M1“ " ‘ 131;?
1 . .H m. 111%? L311 1‘11“ 1"

 
  
  

."1 13:?"

  

I

. 4 “‘l $.19
7
V?

  

      
      
 

 

   

     
   
     
   
  
  

 
  

  
 

  

       
   

1' 1% 1'1 1‘
1‘ 1| v‘ '1‘ (1“ :15, '19. 1.1;};11L :11. 7“
3 . . .1! .1 I\ 111, ~"1i)‘|_14T t \
I II , .. I II:- II 1 111 1 I 1
: ‘ '.I 'I' . I11 1 SIM .. ‘
1 ”1.11.13.11.11“ 115311 ‘11 I II- 11.2911: .11, 11;; I é 1:
‘4". '3! '2" (1"111'1‘ 11111111111111“ iti'bi'l'll'tl' 851%." .tf‘1 1g £311.11:
' F 1":3'1'1 '1"3:\:'1'.".'~'}'~,"'1I'I". ' 5"""'p'1'1"~1"'s§ 1"3'1" ”M‘éh
' V ' . 11"‘?3:'1‘.1"I' 3'1'1', '.'~':§r|.v 'I- '1' "g I " 1‘3" "‘ I;
“ 3 . .11-‘I.‘:'fi‘1fi'xmwiaztgzfiz'u. AWN” . f:
I .‘ 1 A", 1}.1v‘1‘.1-'.“.';: 'u: '1 I}?
' 5' . ;‘- ."i'3'1.1'11"11'II"1'1'1','.}'CJI11' 1'31
. - I: — C 9': .x
1.. I .1 I. . w. a w 2:1
Eu
I1
4.1
1'},
'a
‘E

,m

“5

   

 
  

“'3 —I . t"
'1 "'1' A" ‘ n‘- (,Ii""I:1'-\ '
Id": 1' 1.“'.'~-‘—I'I1"I‘ 1'
if '5 - "1%“ W- W1 “"11"

 
     
  
 

    
   
  
    

V 5:. '1'".
It It ‘
h ‘16‘ $11 4'1“};‘111'S1h1g ' fl' ' .ff‘ ‘ I. .
.‘m '23,": f.,1‘351‘;"h! ' '31". 'V'fi'v'. '111H'1'IE1' '1'?"in "'J- 1' ~ ‘
1 1. f 3\ 111,143“; ~11‘

 

. 51"de

    
   
 

   
    
  

 

""‘T‘Tfi" _ .
.I ,
"h :2."

 
  

  
  
 

3. 1.21311, . 1'311351
. "I L“. I "' 11"113'2‘51'1151;
-' ”'1' '3"? "" 1. '1 '1' '."" '."" ‘ "i"
a. {211:1 ’xflh :33" ti g 121‘“ ‘1'ff '1 :‘j'1V.h'1vn‘1r:(1L
1' 'I} 13'4212‘.‘

13-1 $""‘-"'~'-1' - ’HII'II‘JJW "' “'11“ 1.-'1 225111" -" ' 1.'_ ”I'tj" . a"??? WM n“: "a" '
1 1 . {{1}} (\I1I1 AW. ' 11111111“11111111.!111111’111311'1‘1511111
lLqu' 'L“"-" "" ' A '1 g 1.31" AMI} 1113‘ “1"}: 2": "1'1
""1"? '\ "'"I"’1 '1" "1" \"‘II" '3" "'11 1132""? '5'" 1M“ "" "

       
   

      

     

  

94: k1-

$333351:
.223'J‘IVIK1‘1

f)

1 III '1' I --"I:"‘I‘{:I-‘ . '
1 I 1 “.1.- ‘1 M 'II.2.','I'1§I)\1,"
3"!" ""'%.'""X " '11" ".I".'-\". 51"" 'n
1 111 \1 "
I " ‘

I 1.1 l ”"16" 113.1 3'!" 1'1N‘11'1111
{21111111 I Ia» {11" 1' if: 1911‘!“ {11“ 1"“ “z 71". 13‘1‘1311Y'1.l *
1 kan ‘111-‘1‘;i£\1}}‘1rh"".

,.'.
F?

b '1
(‘7"'l IV1t1 .
3H!“ ”1:131’21‘11

11' -'II I' I z I. 'qu "‘.~‘I' ‘ {511-1 '§'=;~.
11111111'1I-11‘:' 1111\II'3'1I1'1113u1 «11v 3.111111U\11 1.1,: "1-1 i1.‘1'§‘.q)}371

  

"1-,”

     
         

  

.
a I f"
“v __-. z‘
I h .4 1 I

 
 

1 51." 1 . "'5'" " 1'11; ‘ I" . " " '3 n V11 "5 M h" 'i'd I, TY“ if? 1'1"" ‘ }"'"." '.'~‘- 3‘3" “('11 I'
' """ "‘"" 11111111113111, 1"" "'1 " 'k' "" """"" "1'15"" '1'""I"I ' '1' «I"II' I'Il'l' ' ""1';l""'"' 'il" 11'; i" """" "'1"'"""" 1%"?
I I 5'». 1%" 51"." 1" ' """"[‘v'"""'"'l'1l' :11?“ '5')“ .I "I 1V'J" 'f'o‘," ‘ """"' ' " "
1"" Jgg'u'fl '3:"' 1" w'k‘ézwim Ratifié \ "1h ""1'1'8' $1?""r'.'1i‘n'-" ' n. 2?, ';£S"% ‘
' '- :""§‘ I""‘l||l ' '1}:12"1"""'1'1I'\"'"h""l" "' " ' '3'"
5' '11!" 'III " "1"“1' "'l"l\".' 3.1.1.1 '11 \""I'"1'I'\"u'\ 'h'ld‘ '3'". Im'I'xk' '

_ IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII II IIIII L

_ 3 1293 00808 6575

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

A PROGRAM EVALUATION: THE EFFECTS OF
WOMEN'S SELF-DEFENSE TRAINING UPON EFFICACY
EXPECTANCIES. BEHAVIORS, AND PERSONALITY VARIABLES

presented by
Devorah Ruth Smith

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D.

degree in Psychology

 

Date 8/l6/83

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Instituu' n

0127'”

PLACE ll HENRI! BOX to may
TO AVOID FINE

'“mmmvoumm.
Suturinonorbdoroddoduo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A PROGRAM EVALUATION:
THE EFFECTS OF WOMEN'S SELF-DEFENSE TRAINING UPON

EFFICACY EXPECTANCIES, BEHAVIORS, AND PERSONALITY VARIABLES

BY

Devorah Ruth Smith

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1983

Copyright by
DEVORAH RUTH SMITH

1983

ABSTRACT
A PROGRAM EVALUATION:

THE EFFECTS OF WOMEN'S SELF-DEFENSE TRAINING UPON
EFFICACY EXPECTANCIES, BEHAVIORS, AND PERSONALITY VARIABLES

by

Devorah Ruth Smith

This study examined the effects of a woman's self-defense
training course upon self-efficacy expectancies, self-reported
behaviors, and personality characteristics. Its design
improved upon previous related works in its use of follow-up
questioning, its emphasis on specific behaviors, and its
theoretical orientation, specifically Bandura's model. To
assess self-efficacy beliefs, an original measure was designed
that tapped both outcome and efficacy perceptions.

The ten-week feminist self-defense training was a
university course that integrated skill and strength building
physical exercises with discussions. To assess training
effects, 44 female self-defense students were compared to 31
motivation controls (women who had wanted to take defense
training) and 26 physical fitness controls (dance aerobics
students). All completed questionnnaires at pretraining,
course end, and 6 month follow-up. Statistical analyses
included multivariate analyses of variance which, when
significant, were followed by one-way analyses of variance to
assess between-group and across-time differences.

Before training, the three groups were statistically

equivalent on most measures. At course end and follow-up,

Devorah Smith

defense-trained women reported greater vigilance and wariness
when out alone at night, compared to the controls, but did not
decrease their risk avoidance nor fear of sexual assault.
Defense students' outcome and efficacy expectancies also
increased: They were more likely than the controls to believe
that assertive resistances could deter assault and that they
could use such tactics successfully themselves. Also, only
defense-trained women reported increases over time in their
self-esteem and Bem Sex-Role Inventory "masculinity" scores.
In summary, defense-trained women, like both control
groups, reported that they continued to avoid risks. Unlike
the controls, defense-trained women increased their vigilance
and their beliefs that assertive responses could effectively
stop an assailant. The relevant literature has generally
associated assault deterrence with this very combination of
safety precautions and the willingness to resist assertively
when necessary. The defense-trained women's additional shifts
on personality measures may reflect that their enhanced sense
of self-efficacy favorably influenced other aspects of their

lives.

To women,

in strength.

Ho

Ho

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In the two years that I worked on this project my life
has been filled with many people who inspired, cheered, loved,
and challenged me. It felt that at eaCh hurdle, external or
internal, there was always a friend nearby to encourage me

onward.

Let me first thank my committee -- it was a good one.
The members represented different disciplines and personal
styles, so that I was able to tap different strenths from
each. First and foremost, I thank my chair, John Hurley, a
mentor and friend from whom I learned much about psychology
and myself. He gave freely of his time and successfully
taught a long-winded writer like myself to keep this document
at 100 pages. From Norb Kerr, I took the model of a person
able to be a productive and competent researcher while
maintaining a life full of family, friends, and pleasure.
Ellen Strommen was the teacher who introduced me to feminist
psychology, and in so doing deeply influenced my understanding
women and men. From Robert Caldwell I learned much about
research, leadership, and social supports. Deb Feltz not only
smoothed administrative hurtles but also encouraged my first
professional presentation of this work. The study

participants have also earned my gratitude. They willingly

iv

complied with repeated requests for yet one more questionnaire

and in so doing had much to teach.

There are many others I want to acknowledge. Joan Nelson
is a woman I admire. She taught me how to defend myself and
in the process I discovered much about myself. I thank too
the Woman's Research Group, for its acknowledgment that being

a researcher is an exciting and fulfilling goal for a woman.

And still there are others who helped me in this task. I
thank my parents, who may not have always understood my life
choices but nonetheless never failed to be generous with their
support and encouragement. I remember Dave Wenger for never
wavering in his confidence that the developmental path I had
embarked upon was the right one for me. Ed Warner was the
person who taught me that life need not be so intense nor
coping so difficult. He is a special man who, throughout this
process, never ceased to respect my independence nor my
dedication to career and who gave me much to look forward to

in my always too limited free time.

I've saved for last a special group of friends, known
collectively as the Feminist Volleyball Association. Without
those summer nights filled with friendship and joy I am not
sure I would have found the inner conviction and drive to work
so steadily so that I would be able to move on to the next

step in my life.

II.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . .

State of the Art of Evaluation of Self-

Defense Training . . . . .

The Value of an Aggressive Resistance to Rape .

Consequences on Not Presenting an Aggressive

Defense . . . . . . . .
Societal At itude

Feminist Self-Defense Training

Statement of Purpose . . .
Assessment Strategies
Hypotheses . . . . .

Method 0 O O O 0 I O O O 0

subjects 0 O O O O O O O 0

Procedure . . . . . . . .

Measure Development . . .

Steps in Development .
Scale Analyses . . . .

Measures Adapted from the Fear
Measure of Precautionary Behaviors .

Measure of Perceived Physical Competence
Measure of Fear of Sexual Assault

Toward Rape .
Socialization of the "Legitimate" Victim

of Crime Literature

Measure of Efficacy Expectancies .

Measure of Personality Traits
Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale
Measure of Locus of Control

Measure of Sex-Role Identity .

vi

11
11
15

19

22
22
24

27
27
28

30
30
32

33
34
39
39

43

50
50
52
53

III.

IV.

ReSUItS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Comparisons of Groups At Pretest . . . . .
Attrition Rate . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 1: Pretest Equivalence . .
General Description of Study Sample .

The Effects of Self-Defense Training . . .
Statistical Approaches . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 2: Precautionary Behaviors . .
Hypothesis 3: Perceptions of Physical
Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 4: Fear of Sexual Assault . .
Hypothesis 5: Self-Efficacy Expectancies.
Personality Variables . . . . . . . . . .

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Development of an Assertive Style . . . . . .
Theoretical Implications of a Sense of Control
Self-Efficacy. . . . . . .
Attribution Theory . . . . . . . . . . .

SOCial support 0 O O O O O O O O O O O
The Illusion of Control .

Comments on the Study . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cautions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Strenghts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implications for Further Research . . . .

conCIUSion O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

List of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendices
A. Self-Defense Course Description . .
B. Introduction to the Study . . . . .
C. Letter Describing Study . . . . . .
D. Participant Telephone Contact Outline
E. Research Questionnaire . . . . . . .
F. Tables of Means and Standard

Deviations of Research Variables . .

vii

57
57
59
60

67

7O
72
73
79

88
88

91
93

on...
m
\D

. 99

.101

107
109
110
111
113

130

M1 _ fiF

F1.

F2.

F3.

F4.

F5.

F6.

F7.

LIST OF TABLES

Item-Factor Correlations of Precautionary
Behaviors Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item-Factor Correlations of Perceived
Physical Competence Measure . . . . . . . .

Item-Factor Correlations of Fear of Sexual
Assault Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item-Factor Correlations of the Outcome
Expectancy Measures . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item-Factor Correlations of the Efficacy
Expectancy Measures . . . . . . . . . . . .

ANOVA Comparisons Across Groups At Pretest .

Percentages of Respondents Reporting
Sexual Assault at Pretest . . . . . . . . .

Significance Levels for MANOVAS: Hypotheses
2 Through 5 and Personality Variables . . .

Precautionary Behaviors Means and
Standard Deviations . . . . . . . . . . . .

Perception of Physical Competence Means and
Standard Deviations . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fear of Sexual Assault Means and
Standard Deviations . . . . . . . . . . . .

Outcome Expectancies Means and
Standard Deviations . . . . . . . . . . . .

Efficacy Expectancies Means and
Standard Deviations . . . . . . . . . . . .

Self-Esteem Means and Standard Deviations .

Sex Role Identity Means and Standard Deviations

viii

37

4O

42

46

47

61

64

66

130

131

132

133

134
135

136

LIST OF FIGURES

l. The Use of Vigilant Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . .
2. The Use of Avoidant Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Perceptions of Physical Competence . . . . . . . .
4. Fear of Sexual Assault . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Outcome Expectancies: Assertive Strategies . . . .
6. Outcome Expectancies: Dependent Strategies . . . .
7. Self-Efficacy Expectancies; Assertive Behaviors .
8. Self-Efficacy Expectancies; Dependent Behaviors .
9. Perceptions of Self-Esteem . . . . . . . . . . . .
lO. Masculine Traits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ll. Feminine Traits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Rape impacts all women: raped women and women fearful
of rape. "A world without rapists would be a world in which
women moved freely without fear of men. That some men rape
provides a sufficient threat to keep all women in a constant
state of intimidation" (Brownmiller, 1975, p. 229).
Feminists argue that the threat of rape acts as an
instrument of social control. Fear of rape limits women's
personal freedom, restricts their access to the resources of
their communities, and maintains their dependency on men.
Feelings of powerlessness to prevent rape may also adversely
affect their sense of potency in other areas of their lives
(Riger & Gordon, 1981).

Police reports of rape have risen sharply since the FBI
began collecting these data in 1933. In 1980, the FBI
(Uniform Crime Reports) reported 82,088 "founded" cases of
forcible rape, a 45% increase since 1976. Arrests for rape
had increased by only 18% in that same five-year period.

The FBI report identified forcible rape as "one of the most
underreported of all ... crimes" (p. 15).
The actual incidence of rape in this nation is unclear.

FBI estimates may reflect only one in five, or possibly one

1

 

 

2
in twenty, actual rapes and attempted rapes (Amir, 1971;
Brownmiller, 1975). In an interview study (Russell &
Howell, 1983) of a randomly selected sample of 930 San
Francisco women, 24% reported an experience of a completed
rape and an additional 20% reported an experience of an
attempted rape. That study used the standard legal
definition of rape: attempted or completed intercourse by
force, threat of force, or when the person is unable to
consent because she is unconscious, drugged, or in some
other manner totally helpless. Applying these interview
data to life-table demographic analyses, Russell and Howell
(1983) concluded that there is a 46% probability, if the
rape rate remains stable, that a woman in that city would be
a victim of completed or attempted rape sometime in her
life.

Women adopt many strategies for coping with the threat
of rape and recovering from past rapes. Some restrict their
activities, some deny their fears, some attempt to gain a
degree of control over the threat. Acquiring self-defense
skills against sexual assault is one method for developing
some control. The present project is an evaluation of one
self-defense training program. The question organizing the
study is how such training affects women's behaviors, fears,
and strategies for resisting assault.

Throughout this report, the focus is on women's
responses to anticipated assaults. Such attention to

women's behaviors does not imply that the victims are

 

 

 

3
responsible for, or even wholly able to, prevent rape. It
is men who rape and men who must be made to stop raping.
Self-defense training remains just one aspect of rape
prevention policy and one way for women to gain some sense
of control over this threat. As long as rapes continue,

such control can never be complete.

State of the Art of Evaluation of Self-Defense Training

 

To date, psychological research on the effectiveness of
self-defense training courses has been limited, and what has
been done is of questionable validity. The studies have
been of a pretest-posttest design, with posttest data
collection taking place at the end of class. Obtained
scores were possibly contaminated by such transient
influences as feelings about the training's ending or the
desire to thank a helpful teacher. Follow-up evaluation was
not pursued.

One example is Mastria's (1975) doctoral dissertation
which compared self-defense with assertiveness and no
training. The assessed defense course was a short,
police-based program with an information and demonstration
format. Outcomes examined were behavioral and psychological
assertiveness in non-assault situations and self-concept.
Alone, defense training was reported as relatively

ineffective in changing overall assertiveness or

self-esteem.

Donaldson's (1979) dissertation research compared women
enrolled in self-defense, physical fitness, and psychology
classes on a range of personality variables: self-esteem,
locus of control, and various other global self-descriptions
as measured by the Adjective Checklist. The assessed course
was a three-month long physical training experience. At the
end of training, defense students reported an increase in
self-esteem, dominance, and succorance.

Cohn, Kidder, and Harvey (1978) evaluated a 13-week
self-defense course which was similar to the training
program assessed by the present study. Thirty-seven
students rated themselves on 12 adjectives at the class's
start and end. After training, they described themselves as
more strong, brave, active, in control, independent, able to
defend themselves, big, and safe. Open-ended comments were
consistent with these findings, as respondents described a
greater sense of confidence, security, and preparedness to
fight when necessary.

These three studies shared some methodological
problems. Little time was allowed between the learning of
skills and the evaluation of their impact. More
importantly, these researchers all focused upon broad
personality constructs (self-esteem, locus of control) and
general ways of looking at the self (assertive, dominant,
strong, brave). The hypothesis implicitly underlying these

studies was that a relatively brief, non-intensive group

5
experience could have an ameliorative impact upon
long-standing ways of feeling, acting, and being in the
world. However true this may or may not have been, it did
not appear to address the reason why women enrolled in such
courses: to learn to deter physical assault. The ability
of self-defense training to teach women to better protect
themselves from assault has not been established
empirically.

Before considering better evaluation strategies for
self-defense training programs, two main issues must be
addressed. First, is fightingeback against assailants an
effective deterrent? If so, then the second question: why
do more women not fight back? Is it simply due to skill
deficits, or are there other factors that mitigate against

women's learning and using effective defense skills?

The Value of an Aggressive Resistance to Rape

 

Until recently, little was known about women's
behaviors during rape. Instead, most energy was put into
studies of assailants or of post-assault services for women.
Amir (1971) was the first to study women's resistances
during sexual assault. Examining Philadelphia police
records of 646 charges of forcible rape, he concluded that
45% of rape victims resisted by screamining, attempting to

escape, or putting up a strong fight. Amir excluded "verbal

6
protest" and "expression of reluctance" from his definition
of resistance and included young children, usually more
submissive, in his sample. Later estimates of resistance
have been higher, probably due to differences in methodology
and sample. In a study of community respondents, 90% of
assaulted women reported resisting verbally or physically
(Queen's Bench Foundation, 1976). In another study of
hospital rape crisis center users, 86% of the women reported
resisting the assault verbally or physically (Atkeson,
Calhoun, & Morris, 1982).

Women have resisted assault, but how effective were
their resistances? Researchers have addressed this question
by comparing the behaviors and situations of women who were
raped with women who avoided rape. The first such study was
undertaken by the Queen's Bench Foundation (1976), which
advertised for participants in local media and through
neighborhood and women's networks. One hundred eight women
responded and, in structured interviews, described 112
assaults, 52% of which had never been reported to the
police. Their perceptions of effective deterrents were
supplemented by interviews with a sample of incarcerated
rapists.

No demographic differences were found between women who
were raped and women who had successfully avoided rape. All
types of women had been assaulted; but many of them,
representing all ages, races, educational levels, and life

styles, had successfully resisted rape, even against armed

7
and multiple assailants. Assertive victim resistances,
verbal and physical, correlated with deterrence. Rape
avoiders generally used more resistance measures; were more
likely to be suspicious of their future assailants and trust
those feelings, even though they might not know why they
felt uneasy; and were more likely to reply rudely to the
assailant, even though casual conversation preceded over
half of the attacks. In contrast, more raped women had
repressed, rationalized, or disregarded their own uneasy
feelings and responded in their customary friendly, polite
manner during the prelude to the attack. Once the attack
was initiated, they tended to use fewer types of
resistances. Though most women feared that they would be
killed during the assault, raped women thought primarily of
survival and death and rape avoiders were better able to put
aside their fears and consider methods of resistance
(Queen's Bench Foundation, 1976).

Interviews with convicted assailants corroborated the
experiences of the women. Men who had been deterred from
rape reported that they were less likely to have perceived
their intended victims as afraid. On the other hand, men
who had completed their rapes claimed that their victims'
fearfulness (i.e., crying, overt nervousness, unassertive
body language, and verbal stalling) encouraged them to
complete the assault. Though 90% of the women interviewed
reported resisting, only 68% of the assailant group (not

necessarily the interviewed women's assailants) had

8
perceived their victims as having resisted.

McIntyre (1980) interviewed 320 assaulted women
contacted throught rape counseling centers and local
advertisements. Her findings agreed with those of the
Queen's Bench Foundation: Women who employed aggressive
resistances (fought, screamed, ran, spoke assertively) were
more likely to escape rape than were women who talked,
cried, attempted to gain the assailant's empathy, or tried
to make themselves appear undesirable. Timing of aggression
was important. Women who assertively resisted as soon as
they first felt afraid or suspicious were more likely to
escape than those who waited until unwanted sexual advances
were initiated. Successful resistances did not usually
require that the women overcome their attackers (and in most
cases they lacked the size, strength, and skill to do so),
but only that they cause their assailants more trouble than
anticipated.

The core of these findings—-the effectiveness of an
assertive response--was replicated in another study of
Chicago women. Out of a larger sample of raped women
solicited through advertisements and social networks, 13
women were identified as having been assaulted twice, once
in which they were raped and another time in which they had
successfully resisted rape, though not necessarily other
injuries. These women were more likely to escape rape when
they used multiple aggressive behaviors (i.e., screamed and

fought) and when their primary concern was not being raped.

9
In contrast, these same women were more likely to have been
raped when their main resistances were talking or pleading
and when their primary concern was not being killed or
mutilated (Bart, 1981).

The effectiveness of vigorous resistance received
further support in analyses of 1070 mail-in responses to a
sexual assault questionnaire published in 2339, a women's
sex and glamour magazine. Here, self-described rape
avoiders (7% of the sample) were more likely to have been
attacked on the street and to have resisted by screaming and
physically fighting back as compared to the respondents who
were actually raped (Bart, 1975).

These studies substantially agreed that women's
assertive resistances correlated with rape deterrence.
There was also a consensus, though, that resistance
correlated with injury. Amir (1971), Queen's Bench
Foundation (1976), McIntyre (1980), Bart (1975), and
Atkinson et al., (1982) all noted a positive relationship
between assertive resistances and injury. McIntyre
speculated that assertive behavior reduced the likelihood of
rape, but that escape often was not immediate and frequently
involved some "rough treatment" before freedom from the
assailant.

This correlation between resistance and greater injury
was complex. First, most of the reported injuries were
traumatic but medically "minor," defined as not requiring

hospitalization or medical treatment. Second, injury

10
tabulations often excluded rape-related trauma to the
genital area and post-assault gynecological problems.
Third, the relationship was a correlation which precluded
understanding of causality. Assailants may have been more
likely to harm women because they were resisting or women
may have resisted more as a consequence of greater violence
by their attackers.

Although resistance correlated with greater likelihood
of injury, it was not significantly associated with serious
injury (McIntyre, 1980; Queen's Bench Foundation, 1976).
The dichotomy, comply and be raped but not hurt or resist
and be injured but not raped, proved false. Docility was no
guarantee against injury. Some of the most viciously beaten
women had complied with their attackers' demands. In
addition, lack of assertive resistances also correlated with.
greater sexual abuse beyond the abuse of rape itself. The
behavioral sequences most commonly associated with extreme
violence (and these findings were tentative) were no
assertive resistances, assertive resistance early in the
attack only (McIntyre, 1980), and resistances during coitus
(Queen's Bench Foundation, 1976). More work is needed on
understanding the relationship of violence and resistances.
Violence was what women most feared during the attack. Its
presence in an assault also was a significant predictor of
prolonged, post-assault symptoms (Smith, 1982).

Submission did not guarantee less violence, nor did

assertive resistances guarantee escape in these studies.

11
The effectiveness of women's responses depended, in part,
upon the context within which they were undertaken. For
example, women were more likely to escape an assault in a
public area than one in an enclosed area, such as their
homes (Bart, 1975; McIntyre, 1980). Women were also more
likely to avoid rape when their assailant was a stranger
than when he was an acquaintance (Bart, 1981) and when the
assailant's initial approach was hostile rather than
friendly (McIntyre, 1980). Assailant characteristics and
motivations no doubt also played a large role in determining
assault outcome.

In sum, women could not successfully resist all rapes
nor were there simple rules to be followed in each
situation. It was not true that if women always reacted
assertively rape would not happen, but the assault was less
likely to be completed. These studies suggested that the
ability and willingness to resist aggressively (as well as

risk injury) were related to rape deterrence.

Consequences of Not Presenting an Aggressive Defense

 

Societal attitudes toward rape. Rape is embedded in

 

myths and stereotypes. These attitudes touch all segments
of society, from raped women to their rapists, their support
networks, and their police officers, juries, doctors, and

psychotherapists. The core of these myths is that women

12
are, to varying degrees, responsible for their rape
(Thornton, Robbins, & Johnson, 1981). These prejudicial,
stereotyped, and false beliefs about rape, raped women and
rapists have contributed to a climate conducive to the act
of rape and hostile to raped women.

Rape myths are pervasive. In the general population
(for example, Burt's (1980) random sampling of 598 Minnesota
adults) rape myths have been found to correlate with other
deeply held attitudes, such as sex-role stereotying,
distrust of the opposite sex, and acceptance of
interpersonal violence. In her conclusions, Burt stated:

When over half of the sampled individuals agree

with statements such as "A woman who goes to the

home or apartment of a man on the first date

implies she is willing to have sex" and "In the

majority of rapes, the victim was promiscuous or

had a bad reputation," and when the same number

think that 50% or more of reported rapes are

reported as rape only because the woman was trying

to get back at a man she was angry with or was

trying to cover up an illegitimate pregnancy, the

world is indeed not a safe place for rape victims.

(p. 229)

Assignment of responsibility for assault has depended,
to a large degree, on raped women's reactions to their
assailants. In an experimental study, undergraduate
students judged responsiblity in variations on the following
assault vignette:

Following a night class at the University, Judy W.

walked across campus toward her car, which was

parked two blocks from central campus. A man,

Charles E., was walking in the same direction as

Judy and began to follow her. Less than a block

from her car, he approached her. He grabbed her
and . . . (Krulewitz & Nash, 1979, p. 561)

13
Depending on the manipulation, Judy either did as he said,
screamed, or screamed and kicked him hard. The outcome of
the assault was either Judy's being stripped and raped or
stripped but not raped. Attributions of responsibility
varied with assault outcome. The woman was attributed more
responsibility when she was raped than when she was just
stripped (uncompleted rape). The obverse was true of
perceptions of the assailant, who was perceived as more
responsible when he did not complete the rape than when he
did. Respondents of both sexes agreed that it was unclear
whether or not a "rape" had occurred when Judy had not
offered obvious physical resistances.

Sex differences were observed in this study, with
female raters attributing more responsibility to the victim
than male raters. Similarly, Coates, Wortman, & Abbey
(1979) reported that though female respondents generally
empathized more with the victim, they also attributed
greater blame to her and perceived her as less attractive.
These researchers speculated that the women respondents'
empathy and their shared sense of vulnerability may have
motivated the blaming of victims, in an effort to justify
raped women's suffering in a "just world," where bad things
do not happen to good peOple like themselves. However,
patterns of harsher attributions by females were not
consistent across studies. Males in two other studies, with
college students (Feild, 1978) and with adults (Thornton et

al., 1981), assigned greater responsibility to the rape

14
victims than did females.

Rape myths also infected the belief systems of
professionals responsible for punishing rapists and helping
raped women. An Attitudes Toward Rape Questionnaire was
administered to citizens, police officers, rape-crisis
counselors, and rapists. Knowledge about rape did not
impact attitudes, but professional affiliation did. Police
officers', citizens', and rapists' views of raped women
differed significantly from those of counselors. Police and
citizens exhibited the most agreement; police and rapists
agreed on half the attitudinal variables; and police and
rape-crisis counselors agreed on only one attitude, that
women should physically resist rape.

A theme consistent throughout these studies was that
women and men, citizens and police, rape counselors and
rapists all agreed that a woman who did not physically
resist probably was not truly raped. Thus, if a woman's
only concern was her need for social supports after her
attack, it would be to her advantage to put up a vigorous,
physical defense. And if her struggles were successful in
deterring the rape, she would likely receive even more
support. However, most women reported, at least in
interviews after their rapes (Bart, 1981; McIntyre, 1980;
Queen's Bench Foundation, 1976), that thoughts of survival,
injury, and escape were foremost on their minds during the
assault. Concerns about others' judgments were more common

in the minutes directly preceding the assaults and sometimes

15

during assaults by acquaintances.

Socialization of the "legitimate" victim. A theory on

 

the roots of myths about rape has been presented by Weis and
Borges (1973), researchers in criminology and victimology.
From their perspective, rape and societal reactions to it
can be understood as common sex-role stereotypes taken to
hurtful extremes. These stereotypes set up and legitimize
women as victims.

Traditional sex-role learning has taught girls and
women to see themselves as weak, passive, and in need of
emotional and economic support. Part of learning to be
submissive and never being encouraged to rely on their own
resources is learning to rely on others, especially men. In
such unbalanced interactions between the genders, women,
fearful of losing the love of their men, learn that sexual
favors can become valuable commodities, to be traded for
relationships, security, and protection.

Paradoxically, another important part of traditional
female socialization is that women are taught to be chaste
and sexually unavailable. Traditional dating rules assign
women the responsibility of setting the limits. They are
also assigned the blame when these limits are transgressed.
Women are thus socialized to control how far sexual
relations will proceed but to do so in a feminine,

nonaggressive manner (Weis & Borges, 1973).

16

Male socialization re-affirms and complements female
development and has its own pressures. Weis and Borges
(1973) described the demands on boys and men to be always
strong, active, independent, successful. Insecurity about
maleness takes, for some men, over-subscription to "he-men"
exaggerations of masculinity. One sure proof of maleness is
an aggressive sexual style. It may be labeled impolite,
primitive, uncouth, but never "unmasculine."

This extreme masculine style is upheld in traditional
dating rules. In this society, it is understood that men
intitiate sexual activity, that women protest (no matter
their true feelings), and that men then try to overcome
women's "inhibitions." Members of both sexes are likely to
label men's successes at having sexual intercourse as
seductions or "wins." Both sexes will also tend to perceive
men's failures to make moves, to push their advantage, as
unmanly. Weis and Borges (1973) argued that such sexual
roles may have acted to blur the line between consensual sex
and rape.

Reactions of a group of students provided some evidence
that rape is not always considered a deviant act in this
society. Following exposure to written erotic and rape
stimuli, Los Angeles college students of both genders
believed that close to half of the male population would
rape if they could be assured that they would neither be
caught nor punished. With respect to their own potential

involvement, over half of the male participants did not rule

17
out the possibility of sexual assault if guaranteed no
punishment. Both genders also shared the belief that some
women would find rape pleasurable, though very few women
believed that they personally would feel pleasure in an
assault (Malamuth, Haber, & Feshbach, 1980).

An examination of cross-cultural patterns of rape also
lent some support to the idea that certain societal
configurations are related to the cultural acceptance of
rape. The anthrOpologist Sanday (1981) compared 95
societies for which information on rape was available. She
concluded that the incidence of rape varied cross-culturally
and that rape in tribal societies was part of a cultural
configuration that included interpersonal violence, male
dominance, and sexual separation. Societies in which rape
was less common, in contrast, were more likely to equally
value characteristics associated with maleness and
femaleness.

In America, cultural mores socialize against women's
offering vigorous, assertive resistances to forced sexual
contact. Instead of developing physical strength and
learning self-defense skills, most women have learned
"feminine," dependent styles of relating and protesting.
They feel psychologically and physically unable to
effectively protect themselves. Almost all are scared.
Their feminine clothing, such as high heels and constricting
skirts, restrict movement. Many women believe that their

aggression will only provoke their attackers to greater

l8
anger and cruelty. In addition, women are not only usually
physically weaker than their assailants, but, after years of
being taught to nuture and heal, many are also reluctant to
physically injure their attackers, even when given the
opportunity.

The situation becomes more complex when the woman knows
her assailant. She usually trusted him, so that when he
begins to act in an untrustworthy manner, she is most likely
to deny the situation, blame herself, worry about hurting
him, and generally not act forcefully until it is too late
to protect herself (Weis & Borges, 1976; McIntyre, 1980).

There is some experimental support for this
socialization theory of women's reluctance to powerfully
defend themselves. In a laboratory setting, women generally
displayed less dominance than men in problem-solving
situations. However, when the environmental contingencies
were altered so that dominant behaviors were explicitly
rewarded, women were observed to increase their level of
expressed dominance to equal that of men. Klein and
Willermen (1979) concluded that women's tendency to express
less dominance than they were capable of reflected adherence
to traditional sex-role standards that rewarded women's
inhibition of assertive behaviors.

Gender differences have also been observed in autonomic
responses to aggression directed against the self. In
another laboratory experiment, women preferred friendly

counterresponses to perceived interpersonal provocations.

19
Manipulating reward and punishment contingencies to
reinforce aggressive responding did increase women's rate of
aggressive responses, but vasoconstriction readings
indicated that women's anxiety over responding aggressively
never decreased (Hokanson, Willers, and Koropsak, 1968).
Clearly, the expression of assertiveness and aggression is a
conflictual and avoided behavior for many women.

In assaultive situations, female and male respondents
across studies generally agreed the woman was responsible
for preventing rape; and if a woman did not resist, she
probably was not very determined to prevent the sexual
contact. Confounding these shared expectations are female
socialization practices that encourage passive
self-protection strategies. Not only are such responses
often ineffectual, but their use has been misrepresented,
after the assault, as evidence of consent. A woman's
responses to her assailant are thus important. They
determine, to a large extent, reactions by her assailant and

by members of her social networks.

Feminist Self-Defense Training

 

Because women have been trained, since childhood, both
not to resist and that they are incapable of successful
resistance, simply teaching them self-defense skills would

probably be insufficient. Such training may free women to

20
confront, scream, hit, and kick in the classroom, where such
behaviors were clearly encouraged and rewarded, but before
these same actions could be generalized to the stranger in
the street or the pushy acquaintance in their homes, women
must confront their feelings about aggressing.

The focus of this study was the Women's Self-Defense
Course (three sections) taught through Michigan State
University's Department of Health and Physical Education.
The course strove to address psychological defenses against
assertively resisting as it taught skills in assertive
behaviors. The instructor, Joan Nelson, held a black belt
in karate and was a co-founder of the national Feminist
Self-Defense and Karate Association. Both a skilled fighter
and feminist, she integrated, in her course, the technical
and psychological aspects of women's defending themselves
against sexual assault.

The course placed the learning and practicing of
physical techniques within an atmosphere supportive of
women, their fears, and their strengths. Movement was
interspersed with discussions. In the process of learning
to take some control over their own safety, students began
to consider as a group what taking control of their lives
might feel like and to what it might lead.

Physical activity always complemented these
discussions. Women who could not work through their fears
of aggressing in words might come to terms with these fears

as they practiced striking, punching, and kicking. In this

21
way, feminist self-defense training resembled one aspect of
behavioral therapy: a cognitive beginning reinforced and
strengthened by behavioral repetitions. In self-defense
training, neither the technical nor psychological components
alone was considered sufficient.

By the course's end, women had practiced communicating
to an "assailant," through their words, stance, and punches,
that they had control over their bodies and that they were
not going to give up that control easily. Consistent with
the course's underlying respect for women was explicit
acceptance of all reactions to assault, past and future.
Women may have resisted, frozen, or cooperated. No matter,
these decisions were to be trusted, as only the woman
assaulted was there and only she could best judge, given the
complexities of the assault situation, how or if to resist.
The course taught women not to blame themselves nor other
victims, but to consider different behaviors and to learn
new responses that could provide them with more options in
the eventuality of an assault. (The course syllabus has
been provided in Appendix A.)

The present study was a program evaluation of this
self-defense training program. The behaviors and
perceptions assessed, and the reasons for choosing them, are

presented in the following section.

22

Statement of Purpose

 

Assessment Strategies. This study's aim was to

 

evaluate one self-defense training program. Women take
training to learn to protect themselves, and effective
training should teach participants those attitudes and
skills that the research record has shown to correlate with
assault deterrence.

In its conclusions, the Queen's Bench Foundation (1976)
outlined two ways in which women could decrease their
vulnerability to rape. The first involved women's
decreasing their likelihood of assault, by observing safety
precautions, practicing wariness, projecting an aura of
strength, and accepting the dangers of rape. The second was
a willingness to respond aggressively to an assailant.

The components of decreasing likelihood of assault were
straightforward in their operationalization. Measures were
needed that assessed women's behavioral habits, their
perceptions of their strength, and their fears of assault.
Operationalization of the second component, the willingness
to fight back, was more difficult. Responses to general
questions of likelihoood of resisting would be of limited
value. In an actual assault, women must weigh many
variables in determining their responses. In her extensive
interviews, McIntyre (1980) identified one important
component in that decision-making process: "If [a woman]

recognizes the situation as dangerous but believes that

23
there is some hope of escape, she is more likely to resist
aggressively and to avoid being raped" (p. 6). Thus, the
best assessment of a women's behaviors in a particular
assault must take into account her assessment of her chances
for escape in that situation as well as her confidence in
her fighting skills. It is exactly these aspects of
behavioral decision-making that Bandura's (1982)
self-efficacy theory addressed.

Bandura (1977,1982) based his theory of self-efficacy
on work with phobic individuals. He observed in laboratory
situations that people who judged themselves inefficacious
in coping dwelled on their supposed personal deficiencies,
imagined potential difficulties to be more formidable than
they really were, and consequently slackened their efforts.
For example, when severe spider phobics were presented with
tasks for which they held low efficacy expectations, most
promptly dismissed the tasks as too far beyond their coping
capacities and did not even attempt the tasks. In contrast,
individuals with strong self-efficacy beliefs were more
likely to persist in efforts until they succeeded. These
latter people expected, and attained, higher performance
accomplishments.

There were two components to efficacy expectancies.
Outcome expectancies concerned beliefs that certain
behaviors would lead to desired outcomes. Self-efficacy
expectancies concerned beliefs that the person could

successfully perform those behaviors. Bandura contended

24
that behaviors in the world inside and outside the
laboratory were best predicted by considering both outcome
and self-efficacy beliefs (although outcome expectancies
have been ignored in most studies to date).

Efficacy theory predicts that women's outcome and
self-efficacy beliefs about resistance behaviors will
influence women's behavioral responses in assault
situations. For example, women who believe resistance to be
futile (outcome-based futility) would be expected to give up
resisting early on if their initial resistances are not
immediately successful. Women who doubt their capabilities
to effectively aggress against a powerful assailant
(efficacy-based futility) are also predicted to give up
resistance early on in an attack. However, women who
believe certain behaviors to be generally effective in some
assault situations and who perceive themselves to have
skills equivalent to other women who have successfully
escaped similar situations would be more likely, according
to theory, to resist assault with prolonged vigor and
determination. In the rape literature, such confident,
sustained protests were the behaviors most often associated

with assault deterrence.

Hypotheses. The study hypotheses tap the major points

 

of the Queen's Bench Foundations recommendations for
decreasing vulnerability to rape. To evaluate how

self-defense training affected students, defense-trained

25
women were compared at three points of time (before
training, after training, and 6 months later) to two control
groups: motivation controls (women who had wanted to take
self-defense training but for various reasons had not), and
fitness controls (women who were enrolled in an dance

aerobics class).

Hypothesis 1: No significant differences were expected
(the null hypothesis) between the self-defense students,
the motivation controls, and the physical fitness
controls at pretest on the following variables:

1. Self-reported restrictions in behaviors.

2. Perception of physical competence.

3. Fear of sexual assault.

4. Outcome and efficacy expectancies of assault

deterrence.

5. Various personality variables (self-esteem, locus

of control, sex-role identity).

Hypothesis 2: Women trained in self-defense would
practice fewer restrictions on their behaviors than the

control women. These changes would persist over time.

Hypothesis 3: Women trained in self-defense would
increase their sense of physical competence in comparison
to the control women. This change would persist over

time.

26

Hypothesis 4: Women trained in self-defense would be no

less fearful of sexual assault than the control women.

Hypothesis 5: Women trained in self-defense would
embrace more assertive versus passive strategies (outcome
expectancies) for deterring sexual assailants than would
the control women. Defense women would also have greater
confidence (self-efficacy) in their ability to carry
through with such assertive behaviors if assaulted than
would the control women. These changes would persist

over time.

Exploratory: Measures of personality traits
(self-esteem, locus of control, and sex-role identity)
were collected for pretest comparisons and were assessed
again at follow-up. Though no predictions were made that
this brief self-defense training course would impact
general ways of perceiving and being in the world, these
personality measures will be examined for changes over

time.

CHAPTER II

METHOD

Subjects

Three groups of university women, representing
naturally assembled collectives, participated in this study.
The Defense group (pg: 69 at pretest) was composed of
participants in a university self-defense course. The
Motivation control group (n = 45 at pretest) included women
who expressed an interest, during the registration sequence,
in taking the self-defense course but for various reasons
did not. The Fitness control group (n = 65 at pretest)
included students in a university dance aerobics class. A
total of 179 women participated in the pretest and their
responses were used in measure development. (Four women
were eliminated from later analyses when it was learned that
they had participated in the defense training program being
assessed prior to the start of this study). All respondents
volunteered, without offers of payment nor extra course

credit.

27

28

Procedure

 

Women were surveyed three times: pre-course (April,
1982), post-course (June, 1982), and follow-up (December,
1982). For the Defense and Fitness women, pretest and
posttest data collection took place in the classroom. I
visited three self-defense and one dance aerobics class on
their initial and last class meeting. All classes were
entirely female. I was introduced as a doctoral student in
clinical psychology doing a study on women and their
experiences at the university. The dance aerobics class was
large, about 80 women, and not all chose to participate.
Most who declined needed to consult with the instructor
about registration problems. The self-defense classes were
smaller (average size was 23). All self-defense students
present at the targeted class meetings filled out
questionnaires.

The introduction to the study was constant across all
classes and is reproduced in Appendix B. Following a short
description of the study, women were asked to review the
consent to participate form. Once signed, it was detached
from the rest of the questionnaire. To insure anonymity,
students were instructed to create a personal code-number,
one that was both confidential and easily remembered. This
was recorded on the questionnaire booklet and a small
"research card" (which supplied the study's name and how I

could be contacted in case of subsequent emotional upset

29
related to study participation) that was theirs to keep.
Further instructions sensitized them to potentially
intrusive questions. Throughout the introduction, I strove
to create an atmosphere of respect for their feelings and
experiences.

While completing the research questionnaire, the women
appeared to be serious and attentive. Afterwards, some
initiated conversations, expressed gratitude for the study,
or asked for more information about the topic. Five women
offered to help with the study. (All such offers were
graciously refused.)

Contacting the Motivation controls was more difficult.
They were identified through their efforts to enroll in the
self-defense class at various points in the registration
process (pre-registration, early registration, and regular
registration). These included women who had pre—enrolled
but were denied class space due to overenrollments or later
chose to drop the class (2 = 28) as well as women waiting in
registration lines who hoped to add the already filled
course (g_= 24). At the start of Spring term, all women so
identified were sent a letter (shown in Appendix C) that
described the study. Each was then called, by either myself
or a female undergraduate research assistant, and personally
invited to participate in the study. (Guidelines for these
calls are provided in Appendix D.) Arrangements were then
made to either have the women come to a university office to

complete the research questionnaire (the preferred

30

arrangement), have it personally delivered to their homes
(second choice), or have it mailed to their homes (the least
preferred solution). In the first two cases, instructions
were presented orally, as with the self-defense and dance
aerobic administrations. In the latter case, these same
instructions were provided in writing. 0f the 52 targeted
women, 49 returned the pretest surveys, four of whom were
subsequently eliminated for they had late-added the
self-defense course and had been exposed to at least one
class meeting before completing the survey.

This process was repeated with the Motivation controls
at posttest and follow-up. The identical procedure was used

with the Defense and Fitness women at follow-up time.

Measure Development

 

Steps in development. The scientific study of the

 

effects of self-defense training is at an early stage.
Throughout study development, questions that were important
needed to be balanced against those aspects of women's
experiences for which reliable measures had been developed.
A diversity of resources were tapped in the formation of
this study's research questionnaire:

1. Former self-defense students were interviewed. An

open-ended format was used to elicit their conceptions

and feelings before, during, and after self-defense

training. Their responses were then organized by

31
content area. It was from this list that the the
study's organizing questions were developed.
2. The literature was then searched for relevant
measures or, if unavailable, at least ideas on how to
operationalize the questions of interest.
3. Consultations with both local and national experts
on rape (for example, Martha Burt, attitudinal
researcher) were arranged.
4. The self-defense instructor served as a consultant
throughout questionnaire development. She offered
materials on the philosophies of self-defense training,
ideas of what was important to assess, and opinions
during early stages of survey development.
5. An original measure of efficacy beliefs was
designed and pretested on a class of self-defense
students. The goal was to determine those situations
and strategies that were most relevant to these women
and most powerfully differentiated among them.
6. A preliminary draft of the completed questionnaire
was given to former self-defense students, clinical
psychology graduate students, and the self-defense
instructor. Respondents were asked to be critical,
especially in regard to ambiguous items and content
coverage (i.e., were important aspects of the attitudes
and behaviors surveyed omitted?). Particular attention
was paid to the experience of completing the

questionnaire, in order to eliminate sections that

32
might needlessly bore or alienate volunteer
respondents.
The final form of the questionnaire is presented in Appendix

E.

Scale analyses. Once the data were collected, the next

 

step was to reduce the multitude of items contained within
the research questionnaire into a smaller set of meaningful
and cohesive scales. The goal was to identify item
clusters, with each measuring a single underlying variable.
This was realized via the measurement model outlined by
Hunter (1977).

The factor analytic approach of PACKAGE (Hunter, Cohen,
& Nicol, 1982) was applied to the responses of the 179 women
who completed the pretest questionnaire of the present
study. Items were provisionally grouped according to
content areas. These initial clusters were then tested
empirically using exploratory factor analysis, with Varimax
rotation and communalities in the diagonals to correct for
errors of measurement. The output, particularly the factor
loadings and inter-item correlations, served as information
for more intelligently regrouping items into scales.
Oblique multiple group factor analysis followed to check
each scale's integrity. The goal was to group items into
scales on the basis of content, internal consistency, and
external consistency, in order that the resulting measures

would be both conceptually meaningful and statistically

33
sound.

In describing the scales used in this study,
item-factor correlations are commonly reported. Item
clusters were defined in their final form via oblique
multiple group factor analysis, and thus the factors were
NOT rotated. Also, the alpha values reported are usually
standard score coefficient alphas. These are figured by
applying Cronbach's alpha formula to standardized data.
When a scale consisted of items with equivalent or similar
Likert-type response formats, as was always the case here,
the standardized coefficient alpha closely approximated
Cronbach's alpha.

The description of instruments that follows is divided
into three parts: (1) measures adapted from a large study
on fear of urban crime, (2) measures of efficacy beliefs,

and (3) measures of personality variables.

Measures Adapted from the Fear of Crime Literature

Riger, Gordon, and associates (1978, 1981) collaborated
in an extensive survey on the fear of crime in 1977 under
the auspices of the Center for Urban Affairs at Northwestern
University. Telephone surveys were conducted with 1620
randomly selected women and men living within the city
limits of Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Chicago.
Follow-up in-person interviews were performed with a subset

of 299 women and 68 men from this larger sample. Women were

34
deliberately oversampled in this later stage so as to better
understand the reasons for their greater fear of crime and
their strategies for coping with perceived risks. The modal
woman in both the telephone and in-person sample was white,
below 30 years of age, educated at the high school level or
less, employed outside of the home, and living on a
household income of under $10,000.

Similar to the present study's goals, Gordon and Riger
had an interest in uncovering women's strategies for coping
with the threat of rape. Accordingly, their
conceptualizations of women's fears and many of their items
(taken from the protocols of their original interviews) were
the basis of this study's measures of behaviors, attitudes,
and experiences. However, the final collection of items
used in the present investigation's questionnaire was not
identical to those items used by Gordon and Riger. This was
in part due to necessity: This study's questionnaire was
designed before applicable portions of Gordon and Riger's
findings were published. Also, the two studies had different
emphases and assessed different samples. Other changes were
needed to fit the questionnaire within time limits
necessitated by in-class administration. Modifications were
made in consultation with the self-defense instructor or as

a result of the pretest of the instrument.

Measure of precautionary behaviors. Respondents were

 

asked how frequently they used certain common precautionary

35
behaviors. These items were largely selected from protocols
of Riger and Gordon's interviews, with some additions from
the self-defense strategies being taught and from behaviors
mentioned by university women in pre-study interviews.

In their 1982 article, Riger, Gordon, and LeBailly
factor analyzed a subset of the precautionary behavior items
used in their in-person interviews. The resulting
two-factor, eight-item solution reflected the analytic
distinction between avoidance behaviors (actions believed to
decrease exposure to perceived dangerous situations) and
risk-management behaviors (actions believed to minimize or
manage the risk of being victimized when the user either
cannot or will not avoid possibly dangerous situations).
They labeled their factors Isolation and Street Savvy.

This distinction between Isolation (restricting
mobility for fear of safety) and Street Savvy (attempting to
reduce risk in potentially threatening situations) had much
support in the literature on crime. DuBow, McCabe, and
Kaplan's (1979) review of published and unpublished
literature on reactions to crime identified two similar
styles of precautionary behaviors: avoidance reactions
(intended to decrease exposure to perceived dangerous
situations) and risk-management behaviors (intended to
minimize risks when dangerous situations were not avoided).
A similar division was described by Harris (1981) from an
information processing perspective. Here, avoidance was

defined as not making use of stress-relevant information,

36
such as not thinking about the stressor. Conversely,
vigilance referred to the active seeking of information
about a potential stressor.

From the present study's questions on precautionary
behaviors, 23 items (including 7 of the 8 items in Riger et
al.'s (1982) factor solution) were selected for exploratory
and confirmatory factor analysis according to the
measurement model outlined earlier. Both statistical
loadings and item content guided final factor composition.
In the end, two factors were obtained from analyses of
responses by participants in this study. Shown in Table l,
the factors fit well the theoretical distinction between
risk-management and avoidance strategies.

The first factor, labeled Vigilance, contained 11 items
and encompassed a heterogenous set of behaviors designed to
promote awareness and management of potential risks. Its
internal consistency, as measured by standardized
coefficient alpha, was .74. It included such behaviors as
being alert and watchful when out on the street alone at
night, avoiding dark and deserted paths, and mentally
planning escape strategies in case of danger. Among its
items were three from Riger et al's Street Savvy factor. A
high score on this factor did not necessarily indicate a
lack of concern with safety, but rather concern for the
vigilant management of risks. A woman unconcerned for her
safety would likely have scored low on Vigilance and also

low on the next factor, Avoidance.

37

Table l

Item-Factor Correlations of Precautionary Behaviors Measures

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factor
Vigilance Avoidance Behavior

57 25 When walking at night, check often behind you to be
sure you aren't being followed?

53 13 When out alone at night, mentally figure out escape
routes or strategies in case you are assaulted?

50 17 Lock the outside doors when home alone during the day?

50 19 When you see someone suspicious on the street at night,
cross the street or change your route?

49 21 1*When at a movie or on a bus, choose a seat with an
eye to who will be sitting nearby?

48 26 When walking on the street alone at night, make a
point of being alert and watchful?

45 18 Lock ground floor windows at night?

43 35 When out alone at night, avoid using streets or paths
that are not well-lit or well-traveled?

35 11 *Ask salesmen or repairman for identification before
opening the door?

35 15 *In case of danger at night, try to wear shoes that
are easy to run in?

35 17 Lock the outside doors when home alone during the
night?

26 82 +Avoid doing at night things you HAVE to do (such as
shopping, laundry, or library) because of fear for
your safety?

24 80 +At night, not do things that you WANT to do, but
don't HAVE to do (such as visiting, sports, or
evening classes) because of fear for your safety?

29 78 When planning your day, consider what you will have
to give up in order to be someplace safe by the time
it becomes dark?

34 75 Stay home because you couldn't find someone to accompany
you out at night?

16 59 +Restrict your going out to only during the daytime?

45 52 Drive or take a taxi/bus, rather than walk at night,
because of fear of being harmed?

34 51 Avoid being home alone at night?

13 29 *When out alone at night, try not to dress in a
provocative or sexy manner?

Note. All numbers are correlations. Decimals are omitted.

* Item in Riger, Gordon, & LeBailly's (1982) Street Savvy Factor
+ Item in Riger, Gordon, & LeBailly's (1982) Isolate Factor

38

The second factor, labeled Avoidance, had eight items.
It included all items in Riger et al.'s (1982) Isolation
factor, modified somewhat to better fit the university
experience, plus one item, "not dressing in a provacative or
sexy manner," from their Street Savvy factor. In the
thoughts of the college students surveyed here, limiting
one's dress cognitively clustered more with limiting one's
freedom than with managing risks. The Avoidance factor
generally had high inter-item correlations, high item-factor
correlations, and high internal consistency (standardized
coefficient alpha was .84). It encompassed tactics designed
to prevent sexual assault by attempting to limit exposure to
risk, such as women going out only during the day or
avoiding things they wanted to do because of fears for their
safety. The Avoidance and Vigilance factors moderately
correlated (5 = .44).

The assessment of self-protective behaviors undertaken
here started with a different item-set and sampled a
different population than the work of Riger, Gordon, and
LeBailley (1982). Still, parallel factor structures were
found, attesting to the robustness of the distinction
between vigilant and avoidant tactics among women's
strategies for feeling safe.

Scales were formed by reflecting responses (a score of
l was transformed to a score of 4 and vice versa) then
averaging the responses to the items within each cluster.

Scores ranged from never using that set of behaviors (l) to

39

behaviors (l) to using such behaviors all or most of the

 

time (4).

Measure ofgperceived physical competence. Taken
directly from Gordon, Riger, and LeBailley (1982), the
four-item perception of physical competence scale proved a
strong measure. For their in-person interview sample, it
had respectable internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = .76)
and was a powerful predictor of the use of avoidance
behaviors that restricted freedom and access (r = .35, p <
.001).

Factor analysis was repeated to determine the scale's
structure with this college sample. Internal consistency
was again respectable (standardized coefficient alpha = .70)
and item-factor correlations were moderate to high (E = .51
to .71). The scale is shown in Table 2.

As used here, responses to all items were first
reflected then averaged to form the competence scale. A
scale score of l corresponded to self-perceptions of limited
physical competence and that of 7 to perceptions of high

competence (i.e., strength and speed).

Measure of fear of sexual assault. Tyler (1980;
personal communication, March 9, 1982) developed a
questionnaire to assess people's fearfulness of assault and

robbery. This instrument was slightly modified by Riger and

#0

Table 2

Item-Factor Correlations of Perceived

Physical Competence Measure

 

Item-factor

 

correlation Item

.79 And compared to the average man,
would you say you can run faster,
about as fast, not as fast?

.59 What about speed? Would you say you
can run faster than the average
woman, about as fast, or not as fast?

.54 Do you see yourself as stonger,
equally as strong, or weaker than
the average woman?

.51 And compared to the average man,

do you think you are stronger,
equally as strong, or weaker?

41
Gordon in their interviews and further adapted by myself to
the campus setting for this study. The scale's items and
factor loadings are shown in Table 3. (One of Tyler's
original items, "Is there any area on campus where you would
be afraid to walk alone at night?" was eliminated from this
scale as it had limited variability and low correlations
with other items. Almost every women feared some campus
area.)

The first question, "How safe do you feel or would you
feel being out alone in your neigborhood [campus] at night?"
has been the most widely used research measure of fear of
crime. This item has been shown to be sensitive to sex
differences (women report feeling less safe than men), age
differences (older persons report feeling less safe than
younger), and neighborhood differences (women in racially
changing and mixed neighborhoods feel less safe than those
in white middle-class and stable ethnic working-class
neighborhoods, Riger & Gordon, 1978).

The impact of fear upon behavior is well-documented.
For example, Tyler (1980) found that worry about crime and
perceived likelihood of future victimization combined, in
respondents' minds, into a personal vulnerability factor.
This personal-level factor proved distinct from, and
statistically unrelated to, more general-level judgments of
the rate of crime in respondents' neighborhoods. In
addition, Tyler found that crime prevention behaviors were

related to judgments of personal vulnerability rather than

42

Table 3
Item-Factor Correlations of Fear of

Sexual Assault Measure

 

Item-factor
correlation Item

 

.55 How safe do you feel, or would you feel,
being out alone on campus AT NIGHT?

.69 How much do you worry about the
possibility of being sexually assaulted
AT NIGHT?

.43 How much do you worry about the possi-
bility of being sexually assaulted on
campus DURING THE DAY?

.54 How likely do you think it is that you
will be a victim of sexual assault in
the next 12 months?

43
to judgments about the general rate of crime. He concluded
that "individuals do not use knowledge of population base
rates [of crime] to predict behavior of individuals,
particularly themselves" (Tyler, 1980, p. 23).

Factor analysis of the scale used with the present
sample demonstrated that perceived personal risk and worry
about crime also combined into a single personal
vulnerability measure. The four-item scale had a
standardized coefficient alpha value of .63. Responses to
the items were reflected, summed, then averaged. Scale

scores ranged from no fear (1) to high fear (4).

 

Measure of Efficacy Expectancies

Bandura (1977, 1982) has proposed a model of
self-efficacy to explain individual differences in coping
behavior. The theory divided cognitions of a task at hand
into two types of expectancies. OUTCOME EXPECTANCIES
concerned an individual's belief that certain behaviors in
specific situations would lead to a desired outcome.
SELF-EFFICACY EXPECTANCIES reflected an individual's belief
in her/his ability to successfully perform such behaviors in
specific situations.

To assess women's sense of efficacy in assault
situations, a measure was needed that tapped both types of

expectancies across a range of relevant situations.

44
Behavioral tests of reactions to assailants proved
infeasible, so self—reports were used. A matrix was
designed that listed behaviors by rows and assault
situations by columns. The specific behavioral and
situational items were culled from pre-study interviews.
What had been those women's strategies before and after
learning self-defense? What types of assailants most
concerned them? The initial matrix was further refined in
consultation with the self—defense instructor, then
pretested on 20 current self-defense students who were asked
to comment on the clarity of instructions and situations.
From their responses, salient characteristics of potential
assailants (acquaintance or stranger, armed or not) and
women's responses (from passive to aggressive) were
identified.

The end-products were two 12 (behaviors) by 3
(assailant characteristics) matrices, (reproduced on pages
122-1231n Appendix E). To assess outcome expectancies,
women were asked to rate (from very uncertain to very
certain) how EFFECTIVE they believed a specific strategy
would be in deterring each type of assailant. To assess
efficacy expectancies, women were asked to rate (from very
uncertain to very certain) how CONFIDENT they were in their
ability to perform successfully certain behaviors in each
situation.

Hunter's (1977) measurement model was used to determine

scale scores for both matrices. Participants' responses to

45
the 36 items of each matrix were entered into exploratory
factor analyses. In both cases, the two-factor solution
made greatest conceptual sense. Confirmatory factor
analysis closely paralleled the original factor solutions,
with minor realignments guided by item content. Each matrix
could be divided into two statistically sound and meaningful
scales that reflected the analytical distinction between
assertive and dependent strategies and behaviors across the
three types of assailants (male acquaintance, stranger
without weapon, stranger with knife). These factors are
shown in Tables 4 and 5.

The first set of factors divided outcome expectancies
into two main types of resistance stratagies. The Assertive
Strategies factor consisted of 21 items (7 strategies by 3
situations) and had an alpha value of .89. Its items
described verbal and physical aggressive responses to
assaults, such as "be verbally confrontative/assertive,"
"punch and kick," and "act immediately." These same
behaviors have been identified in the literature (Bart,l981;
McIntyre, 1980; Queen's Bench Foundation, 1976) as being
generally the most effective assailant deterrent strategies.
In those studies, such behaviors seemed most common when
women experienced anger in addition to their feeling fear.

The second outcome expectancy factor, labeled Dependent
Strategies, contained 15 items (5 strategies by 3
situations) and had an alpha value of .80. Its items

described less assertive responses, such as "plead, cry,"

’46

Table 4

Item-Factor Correlations of the Outcome Expectancy Measures

 

Factor

 

Behavior Assertive Dependent Mace

 

Assertive strategies

 

 

Acquaintance assailant
Punch and kick 61 l 21
Break his hold/block his blows 60 2 33
Act immediately 53 '5 11
Run away 48 24 21
Scream loudly 39 21 31
Be verbally confrontative/ 30 17 -3
assertive
Walk/appear confident 25 19 2
Unarmed stranger assailant
Punch and kick 75 O 23
Break his hold/block his blows 71 -5 27
Act immediately 60 -9 8
Run away 58 15 22
Scream loudly 54 10 24
Be verbally confrontative/ 44 17 l
assertive
Walk/appear confident 51 13 O
Stranger with knife assailant
Punch and kick 71 -12 12
Break his hold/block his blows 64 -4 26
Act immediately 48 -22 10
Run away 52 O 12
Scream loudly 41 0 8
Be verbally confrontative/ 53 13 -1
assertive
Walk/appear confident 52 25 -5

 

 

 

 

Dependent strategies

 

 

Acquaintance assailant
Verbally stall 7 59 11
Wait for right opportunity 9 52 29
Plead, cry -21 50 8
Make self look unattractive -15 41 14
or sick
Unarmed stranger assailant
Verbally stall 22 66 13
Wait for right opportunity 17 56 29
Plead, cry -2 61 9
Make self look unattractive -10 45 9
or sick
Stranger with knife assailant
Verbally stall 27 46 1
Wait for right opportunity 25 36 16
Plead, cry 7 53 10
Make self look unattractive -1 36 4
or sick I————

 

 

 

Mace strategy

 

 

Acquaintance - Use mace 20 25 88
Unarmed stranger - Use mace 24 23 98
Stranger with knife - Use mace 24 21 84

 

 

 

Note. All decimals omitted.

47

Table 5

Item-Factor Correlations of the Efficacy Expectancy Measures

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factor
BehaVior Assertive Dependent Mace
Assertive responses
Acquaintance assailant r-
Punch and kick 65 20 37
Break his hold/block his blows 61 2 30
Act immediately 55 22 38
Run away 51 ll 16
Scream loudly 48 29 36
Be verbally confrontative/ 42 31 37
assertive
Walk/appear confident 40 40 30
Unarmed stranger assailant
Punch and kick 68 26 33
Break his hold/block his blows 62 2 31
Act immediately 64 33 34
Run away 59 14 19
Scream loudly 63 38 41
Be verbally confrontative/ 52 31 40
assertive
Walk/appear confident 46 4O 24
Stranger with knife assailant
Punch and kick 58 26 32
Break his hold/block his blows 59 5 30
Act immediately 54 18 26
Run away 60 17 15
Scream loudly 59 3O 35
Be verbally confrontative/ 43 21 30
assertive
Walk/appear confident 35 25 12
Dependent responses
Acquaintance assailant
Verbally stall 26 65 19
Wait for right opportunity 34 53 23
Plead, cry 1 51 15
Make self look unattractive 13 48 23
or sick
Unarmed stranger assailant
Verbally stall 38 73 26
Wait for right opportunity 40 51 24
Plead, cry 6 54 24
Make self look unattractive 14 54 26
or sick
Stranger with knife assailant
Verbally stall 39 57 21
Wait for right opportunity 43 50 27
Plead, cry 8 54 17
Make self look unattractive 14 49 24
or sick
Mace response
Acquaintance - Use mace 94 38 85
Unarmed stranger - Use mace 97 35 96
Stranger with knife - Use mace 58 38 9O

 

 

 

Note. All decimals omitted.

 

48
"make self look unattractive or sick," and "wait for the
right opportunity." Such strategies suggested more passive
efforts to deter potential assailants. According to the
literature (Bart, 1981; McIntyre, 1980; Queen's Bench
Foundation, 1976), these behaviors were most common when
women's dominant emotion was fear and were generally less
effective than the more assertive strategies. The Assertive
Strategies and Dependent Strategies factors were relatively
independent, as they correlated only .11.

The use of mace did not fit clearly into either of the
above clusters, but it was a strategy of special interest.
In pre-study interviews, it had been a common precautionary
behavior among college women. It was analyzed separately.
The 3 item (1 strategy by 3 situations) scale had an alpha
value of .93 and a .25 Pearson correlation with the
Assertive Strategies factor and a .26 Pearson correlation
with the Dependent Strategies factor.

The measure of self-efficacy employed an identical
matrix, only with different instructions. While in the
outcome expectancy section women were asked to rate how
effective they thought a particular strategy would be in
deterring a sexual assault, here they were asked how
confident they were in their ability to perform each task
successfully in a particular situation.

The determination of the self-efficacy factors followed
the same process outlined for the outcome expectancy matrix.

The two-factor solution to the exploratory factor analysis

49
roughly fit that found with the outcome matrix. To
facilitate comparisons across matrices, items were slightly
realigned so that the efficacy scales matched the outcome
scales. This cluster arrangement was then subjected to
oblique multiple groups factor analysis, which confirmed
that the factors so designed fit the data statistically and
meaningfully. These factors are shown in Table 5.

The first factor, labeled Assertive Responses,
consisted of 21 items (7 strategies by 3 situations that
duplicated those in the Assertive Strategies factor) and had
an alpha value of .90. Again, the items described
aggressive responses, such as confront/assert, punch and
kick, and act immediately.

The second efficacy factor, labeled Dependent
Responses, consisted of 12 items (4 behaviors by 3
situations that matched those in the Dependent Strategies
factor) and had an alpha value of .84. Its items were "make
self look unattractive," "plead, cry," "verbally stall," and
"wait for the right opportunity."

Again, the use of mace did not clearly fit either
cluster; and its three items (1 response by 3 situations)
were analyzed separately. The resulting Mace Response
factor had an alpha value of .93.

Correlations among these three efficacy factors were
moderately high: Assertive Responses to Dependent
Responses, 3 = .42; Mace Response to Assertive Responses, 3

= .55; Mace Response to Dependent Responses, 5 = .41.

50
Clearly, the factors were not independent. They appeared to
measure different facets of a larger, underlying variable,
perhaps general confidence to successfully deter an
assailant. However, the exploratory factor analysis and
trends of internal and external consistency supported the
conceptualization and measurement of the three factors as
separate components of self-efficacy in assaultive

situations.

Measure of Personality Traits

 

Three personality scales (self-esteem, locus of
control, and sex-role identity) were included at pretest to
gain information about possible differences between the
three groups before any intervention. Time constraints
prevented these scales' inclusion at posttest. They were
included again at follow-up. Such broad personality traits
have been the focus of previous evaluations of self-defense
training.

Rosenberg's self-esteem scale. Rosenberg (1965)

 

developed this scale as an easily administered, short, and
unidimensional measure of the attitude toward the self as
part of a study on the effects of social experiences upon
adolescents' levels of self-esteem. His original sample
consisted of 5024 high school juniors and seniors from 10
randomly selected New York state high schools. High

self-esteem was conceptualized as the feeling that one is

51

"good enough," self-acceptance while recognizing one's
limits, and confidently expecting further growth and
improvement. Low self-esteem was conceptualized as
self-rejection, self-dissatisfaction, self-contempt.

Crandall (1973) considered this one of the eight best
self-report measures of self-esteem. Though originally
designed as a Guttman Scale, the ten-item scale has been
most frequently used as a Likert-type scale (Dobson, Goudy,
Keith, & Powers, 1979). It has been found to have
respectable internal consistency (Cronbach alpha was .72 in
a sample of adults reported by Jacques and Chason, 1977) and
high test-retest reliablity (5 = .86 across two weeks among
two college samples reported by Rosenberg, 1979). Construct
validity has also been demonstrated. Self-esteem, as
measured by this scale, correlated negatively with
observers' ratings of students' depression, disappointment,
and self-critical skills; correlated negatively with
physiological indicators of neurosis and self-reports of
psychosomatic symptoms; and correlated positively with peer
ratings of interpersonal adjustment (Rosenberg, 1965).

Lately, there has been controversy around the scale's
alleged unidimensionality (Dobson et a1, 1979). However,
with college age populations, the age group for which it was
developed, this scale repeatedly has been found to be
unidimensional (Hensley & Roberts, 1976; Hensley, 1977).

The Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used here (see page

128 in Appendix E) in a four-step Likert format. The

52
pretest data showed it to be both unidimensional and
internally consistent (alpha was .82). Scores to the items
were averaged to yield a scaled score such that l

corresponded to low self-esteem and 4 to high self-esteem.

 

Measure of locus of control. Rotter's

 

Internal-External Locus of Control Scale was designed to
assess people's perceptions of the contingencies between
their behavior and the events which follow those behaviors.
It is the most widely used test of locus of control
perceptions and has been demonstrated to have good internal
consistency and high test-retest reliability (MacDonald,
1973). However, it is also rather long, consisting of 25
forced-choice statement pairs plus 6 filler pairs. Due to
time constraints in the present study, a shorter version of
this test was sought.

Most shortened versions of this scale followed factor
solutions. Though Rotter originally believed his measure to
be unidimensional, others (MacDonald, 1973; Mirels, 1970;
Strickland & Haley, 1980) have found it to be
multidimensional. Originally, it was also thought
independent of gender, as overall patterns of means and
standard deviations were similar for males and females.
Recently, though, evidence for sex differences has been
accumulating. When subjects were asked to respond to the
Rotter I-E scale according to extreme sex roles (the "super"

woman or man) the differences were striking and suggested

53
possible sex role bias (Strickland & Haley, 1980).

Strickland and Haley (1980) more carefully tested for
hypothesized sex differences by first matching scores of
females and males then performing factor analyses. Though
starting with identical means and standard deviations,
females and males responded quite differenty to some items,
especially items relating to personal control. The two
resulting factors were similar in meaning to those found by
Mirels (1970) but were composed of different items.

The first factor encompassed perceptions related to
political control and its four items were identical for
respondents of both sexes. The second was a personal
control factor. Its items differed across sexes, with no
overlap. Females and males seemed to express personal
control expectancies in different ways. Items loading
highest for females concerned self—directed activities (i.e,
planning ahead and personal self-direction), while those
items loading highest for males related to influencing
others (i.e., leadership roles). For females, the two
factors accounted for 12% and 5% of the variance,
respectively. As these two aspects might differentiate
between self-defense students and the controls, both factors
were included in the research questionnaire (see page 128 in

Appendix E).

Measure of sex-role identity. The Bem Sex-Role

 

Inventory (BSRI) was developed as a measure of masculinity

54
and femininity, conceptualized as independent dimensions.
Items were selected on the basis of cultural definitions of
sex-typed social desirability, as judged by student raters
(Bem, 1981a). Originally designed as a 60-item scale, the
shortened 30-item version (10 masculine, lO feminine, and 10
neutral items) was used in this study (see page 129 in
Appendix E).

The Short BSRI has been judged to be psychometrically
sound. Items were selected to maximize internal consistency
of the two scales as well as to tap the most desirable
personality characteristics for a given sex-role. In a
sample of university women, coefficient alphas for the two
scales were .84 (Masculine) and .87 (Feminine), their
intercorrelation was low (5 = .19), and four-week
test—retest reliability was high (5 = 88; Bem, 1981a).

The adjectives best summarizing the BSRI's masculinity
dimension have been found to be "dominant" and "assertive"
and those best summarizing the feminity dimension were
"compassionate" and "tender" (Bernard, 1980). According to
some (including Bem, 1981b and Jones, Chernovetz, & Hansson,
1978), these scales are believed to also tap instrumental
(i.e., agentic, strong) and expressive (i.e., communal,
nuturant, emotional) interactional styles.

The BSRI traditionally has been used to measure
androgynous (high on both dimensions) and undifferentiatied
(low on both dimensions) sex-role orientations in addition

to masculinity and femininity. In Bem's (1974) original

55
conceptualization, androgyny was hypothesized to be the
style permitting greatest behavioral flexibility and
adjustment. Current research, though, has not supported
this model.

In discriminant analyses, androgynous and masculine
groups shared many of the same traits (Bernard, 1980). In
another examination of a wide range of personality
characteristics (Jones et al., 1978), the most flexible,
adaptive, unconventional, and competent patterns of
responding occurred among the more masculine-scoring persons
of both genders. For example, though "androgynous" females
were less conventional, awkward, sensitive to criticism, and
more outgoing, creative, and politically aware than were
"feminine" women, the "masculine“ females were even more
adaptive, competent, and secure than the androgynous-scoring
women. Jones and colleagues noted that "the less masculine
the female, the more desirable increased masculinity became"
(p. 312), perhaps a reflection of the higher value that this
society places upon masculine tendencies. Because sex-role
identity was included in most prior studies of self-defense
training and because self-perceptions as instrumental and
expressive appeared applicable to learning assertive defense
techniques, the BSRI was included here. Responses were

scored from very uncharacteristic (1) to very characteristic

 

(7) on the masculine and feminine dimensions only.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Data Analyses

 

This study evaluated a woman's self-defense training
program. It compared the responses of self-defense students
(the Defense group) with women who wanted to enroll in the
class but did not (the Motivation group) and women who were
enrolled in a dance aerobics class (the Fitness group) at
pretest, posttest, and follow-up 6 months later.

In determining the equivalency of these groups at
pretest, univariate analyses of variance (ANONAS) and t
tests were used. For examinations of the effects of defense
training across time, and in comparison to the controls,
multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAS) were used. In
an effort to limit experimentwise error rate, further
comparisons were made only when the most inclusive test of a
hypothesized relationship was significant. For example, if
a multivariate analysis of variance yielded significant
findings, it would be followed by univariate ANOVAS across
groups and repeated-measures ANOVAS across time periods. If
these were significant and further comparisons were of

interest, post hoc Newman-Keuls' tests were performed to

56

57
probe relationships among pairs of means. Another safeguard
against Type 1 errors was the decision to report only

findings significant at the .05 probability level or below.

Comparisons of Groups at Pretest

 

Attrition rate. This evaluation of self-defense

 

training centered upon the comparison of Defense women,
Motivation controls, and Fitness controls. Although neither
control group duplicated the defense skill-building nor the
feminist philosophical components of the training program,
together they controlled for two important aspects--interest
and fitness--of the experimental condition.

One hundred seventy-five eligible women (68 Defense, 44
Motivation, and 63 Fitness) completed the first
questionnaire at the start of Spring term, 1982. Attrition
occurred at each subsequent data collection. At posttest 10
weeks later, 132 women (75% of the original sample)
participated. At follow-up 6 months later, 101 women (58%
of the original sample, or 76% of the two-time participants)
returned questionnaires. These included 44 Defense, 31
Motivation, and 26 Fitness women.

The attrition rate varied for the three groups.
Continuing participation rates of the Defense women (65%)
and Motivation controls (70%) were roughly equivalent and

well above that of the Fitness controls (41%). This last

58
group's lower rate may have reflected the larger class
setting of their pre- and post-data collections. There was
both a higher turnover of students from the first and last
class meetings and less personal contact with the
investigator.

Participation figures for all groups were also
conservative underestimates. Questionnaires were anonymous
and were matched over time via participant-created code
numbers. In at least three cases, and perhaps a few more,
there was evidence that a woman had returned all three
questionnaires but the lack of matching code numbers and
sufficient demographic information precluded their being
reliably matched. Overall, the 42% loss of subjects over 8
months seemed reasonable, given study expectations that
participant complete the same hour-long questionnarie three
times without remuneration.

The loss of subjects appeared random with respect to
the variables assessed. At pretest, there were few
differences between the 101 women who completed three
questionnaires and the 74 women who had completed only one
or two of them. The three-time completers were equivalent
to the one- and two-time completers on such demographic
characteristics as age, race, religion, marital status,
position in family, sex of siblings, years enrolled in
college, location and type of residence, and roommate
situation. There were no significant differences in the

type of place (urban or rural) they grew up nor their

59
perceptions of neighborhood safety when in high school. In
terms of variables central to the evaluation of defense
training, the two groups did not differ significantly in
terms of their use of avoidant or vigilant precautionary
behaviors; self-perceptions of physical competence; fear of
assault; outcome expectancies of assertive, passive, or mace
strategies; efficacy expectancies of assertive or passive
behavioral responses; perceptions of locus of control; or
sex-role identity. Of this group of 29 variables and scales
assessed at pretest, only 3 differed significantly: number
of siblings (£[l73] = 2.75, p < .01); self-esteem (£11691 =
-2.62, p = .01); and confidence in their ability to use mace
(£[170] = 2.76, pq< .01). Women who remained active
participants in this study had fewer siblings, higher
self-esteem, and less confidence in their ability to use
mace. This random drop-out pattern observed supports the
external validity of the self-selected sample of the
continuing participants. These 101 women were the focus of

all later analyses.

Hypothesis 1: Pretest Equivalence. No significant
differences were expected (the null hypothesis) between the
self-defense students, the motivation controls, and the
physical fitness controls at pretest.

Responses of the 101 women who completed all 3
questionnaires were compared via 3 x 1 (Groups x Time)

ANOVAS and, following a significant F, by post hoc

60

Newman-Keuls' tests. Of the 15 variables compared, only 3
differed significantly across groups, as shown in Table 6.
All three were perceptions of self-efficacy and in each case
the Defense group was statistically equivalent to at least
one if not both controls. Overall, these groups differed
little at pretest.

When comparisons between Defense, Motivation, and
Fitness groups were repeated with the total 175 women
pretest sample, a similar pattern held. These groups were
equivalent on 13 of 15 variables. The exceptions were
measures of dependent efficacy expectancies and BSRI

femininity.

General description of study sample. The 101 women who
completed three questionnaires generally represented the
university population from which they were drawn. They
ranged in age from 18 to 29 (M = 20.8) and from freshperson
to graduate student, with the majority being sophomores
through seniors. They were predominantly white (95%) and
never married (90%). Approximately half lived on campus in
dorms (48%), while most of the remainder rented apartments
(32%) or homes (14%) in the small city surrounding the
campus. Most (71%) lived with other women, although 11%
lived alone, 8% in mixed-sex households, 9% with male
friends, lovers, or husbands, and 1% with their children.

A little was learned of their history. They grew up in

suburbs (35%), small cities (23%), rural areas (22%), medium

61

Table 6

ANOVA Comparisons Across Groups at Pretest

 

Sample

 

Three-Time Com-
pleters (n = 101)

Post hoc a

Total Pretest Sub-
jects (n = 17;)

F Post hoc a

 

Variable leVel comparison lEvel comparison
Precautionary Behaviors
Vigilant Behaviors ns gs
Avoidant Behaviors gs gs
Physical Competence gs gs
Fear of Sexual Assault gs gs
Outcome Expectancies
Assertive Strategies gs gs
Dependent Strategies gs ‘gs
Mace Strategies 25 BE
Efficacy Expectancies
Assertive Behaviors .009 Mot Def Fit ‘gs
Dependent Behaviors .013 Mot Fit Def .050 Mot Fit Def
Mace Behaviors .032 Mot Fit Def gs
Personality Variables
Self-Esteem ‘gs gs
Locus of Control-Personal gs gs
Locus of Control-Political gs gs
BSRI-Masculinity gs gs
BSRI-Femininity gs .017 Fit Mot Def

 

aGroups ordered by mean score from highest to lowest.
sharing common line do not differ significantly.

Groups

62
cities (14%), and a small number (4%) in large cities. Only
a few reported being worried about assault when in high
school. Fifty-three percent worried "not much at all" and
31% "little." Only 1% worried about assault "a great deal"
and 15% "some" in that period of their lives. The
overwhelming majority considered their high school
neighborhood safe (57%) or at least "somewhat safe." Only
4% described it as "not very safe."

These women were also asked about previous experiences
with family violence and sexual assault. Few volunteered
reports of family violence. Approximately 23% shared that
they had "sometimes" been hit during childhood and 4% more
frequently. Five percent said that their parents had
"sometimes" hit one another, and 11% reported having been
hit by their latest lover.

Sexual assaults were more commonly reported.
Twenty-five percent affirmed that they had had someone
"force sex on [them], in any way, against [their] will."
Five percent said that they had been raped. Another 8%
reported being "sexually assaulted by a relative." Nearly
half (46%) responded that someone had "attempted to force
sex on [them,] in any way, but unsuccessfully"; and 10% said
they had sex with someone only because they "were afraid
that physical force would be used against [them] if [they]
did not go along." Also, 58% reported that during dating
they had been pushed "to go farther sexually than [they]

wanted to." The Defense women's assault experiences did not

63
differ statistically from those of the controls. Some women
without past assaults chose to learn self-defense, and many
others, including the exercisers, were coping with the
aftermath of sexual assault and/or incest. As the breakdown
by group is of interest, it is provided in Table 7.

These figures seem sobering, especially considering the
possibility that they may well be underestimates. The FBI,
in its Uniform Crime Reports (1980), considered sexual
assault one of the most under-reported crimes due primarily
to victim fear or embarrassment. Researchers (Gordon et
al., 1980; Russell, 1982) have found that reports of rape
increased as personal contact between the investigator and
respondent increased. Paper-and-pencil surveys, such as
this one, are likely to elicit fewer reports of assault than

would personal interviews.

The Effects of Self-Defense Training

Statistical Approaches. Each of the following
hypotheses made a prediction about the effects of
self-defense training upon specified criteria. Accordingly,
this study encompassed a multiplicity of comparisons, the
values of each of the chosen variables across three groups
and three time periods. Due to this large number of tests,
there was a need to control the experimentwise error rate.

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was selected for

64

Table 7
Percentages of Respondents Reporting

Sexual Assaults at Present

 

 

Experience Defense Motivation Fitness Total
(g = 44) (g a 31) (g = 26) (g = 101)

Forced sex against 20 35 19 25

will

Raped 5 l3 0 6

Sexually assaulted 9 10 4 8

by relative ,

Forced sex, deterred 48 45 42 46

Forced sex, because 7 16 8 10

afraid

During dating, pushed 66 52 52 58

farther than wanted

to go

At least one of the 80 68 65 72

above experiences

 

Note. Percentages do not add to 100 as women could report more
than one experience.

65
this purpose as this statistic provides one overall
probability statement for a set of dependent variables (Bray
& Maxwell, 1982).

The hypothesis was used as a conceptual unit for the
MANOVA equations. To have put all variables into a single
equation would have been overwhelming and difficult to
interpret. Bochner and Fitzpatrick (1980) argued that a
MANOVA must involve a conceptually meaningful set of
dependent variables. Otherwise, its results confuse rather
than inform.

All scales relating to a single hypothesis were combined
into a single MANOVA analysis. An exception was the
physical competence and fear hypotheses. Each concerned
only a single variable and, as combining them made
statistical and conceptual sense, they were entered together
into a single MANOVA. The three personality measures,
assessed at pretest and follow-up only, were also combined
into one analysis. All MANOVA results are shown in Table 8.

In each MANOVA test of a hypothesis, significant main
and interaction effects were observed. To better understand
the relationships of the Defense women over time and in
comparison to the controls, univariate ANOVAS were
subsequently performed. The results of these tests are
displayed in the figures that accompany the discussions of
each hypothesis. In these figures, statistics across the
horizontal axis represented 3 x 1 (Group x Time) ANOVA

comparisons that assessed group differences at each time

66

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

co -m a: a: a: me one.
.6 N .188 x I: p 88.... x 8.: 3: 2, Nos Its. a. be 3.1 2. 2.:
ill N 8.5 — use 8:.
$8.5 Sagas. 88.5 .52
8 a .8. ... 8°. .8. 88. as. No. .8.
a a a a
Na .N a. 2. N8. 8 N8. 2 :o. .88.
Na .N 2. a. :8. as. 8. 8 2 .8.
mm N 8.5 p 8.5 N 8.5 _ 88a 3: 2, be :2 a. be as-.. a, as: 33.. m. 2.:
x N 8: x N I: x p 8: x _ 8: N 888 _ 88¢ N ...: p 8:
EB: ale—BEEN ESE Es.

mo—au—Lo> zuv—acamsoa use m gaaatsh N unmanned»:
328.3. ..8 :83 assoc—83..

m u4u<h

.8. v N.

nopnovsa>
hay—oeomsoa

movoeeuuoaxu
uncoveem

mace—aecaou

a mucouoasou
—~o¢maga

mso.>ogoa
auoeovuauuora

67

period. Fetests along the vertical axis represented l x 3
(Group x Time) repeated-measures ANOVA comparisons that
analyzed each groups' development over time. Each ANOVA was
a comparison of 3 means, three groups in the former case and
three time periods in the latter. In those cases where it
was important to understand individual relationships among
the means, as in which group or time period contributed the
most variance to a statistically significant relationship,
post hoc Newman-Keuls' tests were performed. Means and

standard deviations for each scale are provided in Appendix F-

Hypothesis 2: Precautionary behaviors. Women trained

 

in self-defense will practice less restrictions on their
behaviors than the control women. These changes will
persist over time.

Precautionary behaviors were measured by two scales.
The first, an ll-item Vigilance scale, explored women's
risk-management strategies, such as reports of being alert
and watchful when out alone at night and mentally planning
escape strategies in case of danger. The second, an 8-item
Avoidance scale, measured women's practices of limiting
their exposure to perceived risks, such as by going out
alone only during the day and avoiding some activities
because of fear for safety. Each was measured on a gsysg

(l) to all or most of the time (4) Likert scale. As the

 

only behavioral assessments in this study, these
self-reports were of particular importance. The results

partially supported the hypothesis and are graphed in

68

Figures 1 and 2. Defense students increased their use of
vigilant behaviors but did not decrease their use of
avoidance behaviors.

With respect to vigilant behaviors, the groups were
statistically equivalent at pretest. The Defense women
reported a significant increase in their use of vigilant
behaviors at posttest and sustained this increase at
follow-up. Motivation and Fitness controls did not exhibit
parallel increases, so that at both posttest and follow-up
the groups differed significantly. Post hoc Newman-Keuls'
tests indicated that 6 months after training the Defense
women used vigilant behaviors significantly more often than
either control.

The pattern of changes in avoidance behaviors,
self-restrictions employed by women to reduce their exposure
to assault risks, was different. No statistically
detectable between-group differences were observed at
pretest, posttest, or follow-up. Analyses of each group's
development over time (repeated-measures ANOVAS), revealed a
significant reduction in avoidant behaviors only among the
Motivation controls. Defense and Fitness women did not
change their avoidant patterns significantly.

In sum, Defense-trained women did not increase their
exposure to dangerous situations, as their reported use of
behaviors designed to avoid risks paralleled that of the
controls. However, when out alone and feeling at risk,

Defense-trained women described themselves as more vigilant,

69

"m 1
III 08! N "01W? WIN.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.4
: ,J . [(2. 80) - 7.95***
o
I
L
.‘l
t 3.2 .
s
E
e ’03 N ‘N.
g f \ {(2, 60) < ‘l
R _
' a . \.\
H m gum} "‘~
“flutter contacts I \4 512. 46) - 1.14
I-"Irmsxcm. FITNESS csmou
2.0 i I
us nor rerun-or
ml:
[(2. 95) < 1 [(2. 97) . 3.091» [(2, 97) - 5.70"
noun 2
2., mt our or murmur sermons
A
e to! .\\
o
x
o
3 N ~
t s . .
g \‘ g £(2. 45) 3 1.89
g 1
2 a. N
c max“.
I -..\
3 - \r.“ [(2. so) - 9.48m
' m ..
I... .mm, {(2. 30) - 2.7a
Huanvnnon carrots
t-Irunxcm. mum courteous
1.0 1 I I
m not rattan-tr
mu:
{(2. 95) - 1.14 [(2. 9s) <1 [(2. 93) .1
t
2 < .05
** 2 < .01

7O
wary, and ready. These gains, evident at posttest, were

even stronger at follow-up.

Hypothesis 3: Perceptions of physical competence.
Women trained in self-defense will increase their sense of
physical competence in comparison to the controls. This
change will persist over time.

Physical competence was measured by a 4-item
Perceptions of Physical Competence scale that asked women to
compare themselves to the average woman and man. Scored

from weak and not so fast (1) to strong and fast (7), it

 

tapped views of those physical qualities important to
women's decisions of if and how they might resist an
assailant. The results, which strongly supported the
hypothesis, are presented in Figure 3.

Statistically equivalent to both controls at pretest,
the Defense women significantly increased their perceptions
of their physical competence at posttest and sustained this
gain at follow-up. At these later times, significant group
differences were observed The Defense women's mean
self-perceptions of physical competence were statistically
greater than the Fitness controls and also exceeded (albeit

not significantly) those of the Motivation controls.

noznqnwaoo ran—.431

”8""

71

FWIRES
PERCEPTION OF PHYSICRL CUHPITEICE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4
~ £(2. 80) - 16.ll***
8.8 .4
N ' [(2. 58) < 1
...-f.
BOO J
G
Hutu-arms: swarms 32' ‘8) " 1'38
"’ Huotmnou camera -"'"’""
”Parana. rims: M
......“-
s 1 I I j
m '0" PW
mu:
m. 97) - 1.04 5(2. 97) - 5.94" {(2, 98) . 4.44*
now: 4
2 a man or sexual. m:
’0‘ *
“s
2.: .
I A
\
2.2 .
RQ‘ [(2. 80) " 6.78“
.. “ms-"m“...ssmsn ‘\ .. I. ....
HM mvsxcm. runes: cums \ \[flzo ) -
\ng. 48) - 4.78*
2 r I fl
PM! not mow-or
ms
52' 95) < 1 5(2. 95) < 1 £(2. 95) < l
< .05
** g < .01

Mg< .001

72

Hypothesis 4: Fear of sexual assault. Women trained

 

in self-defense will be no less fearful of sexual assault
than the control women.

Worry about sexual assault was measured by a 4-item
Fear scale that asked women how safe they felt being out
alone on campus at night, how much they worried about the
possibility of being sexually assaulted on campus at night
and in day, and their perceived likelihood of being sexually
assaulted within the next 12 months. Campus was chosen as
the site for the fear assessment as it was the environment
all participants shared at pretest and posttest. A score of
l corresponded to no fear and a score of 4 reflected gigg
fssg of sexual assault.

The measurement of fear was complicated by the fact
that at follow-up time 30 women (16 Defense, 5 Motivation,
and 9 Fitness) had terminated their university involvement
and could no longer rate their fears of sexual assault on
campus. They were instructed on the follow-up to report
instead on their fears of sexual assault in their current
neighborhoods. Though slightly less fearful, women who had
left the university area did not differ significantly on
this measure (£[99] = 1.78, gs) from the women who had
maintained access to the campus at follow-up. The results
including the responses of all women (those near and those
no longer near campus) are presented in Figure 4. As
predicted, there were no group differences. Unexpected,

though, was the general decrease in level of fearfulness

73
over time reported by all three groups.

Specifically, at pretest, posttest, and follow-up,
there were no statistically detectable differences among the
three groups when the scores of all women were analyzed
together as well as when the scores of the 70 women
remaining near campus were analyzed separately (at
follow-up, §[2, 68] < l, gs). Later, all three groups
decreased their reports of fearfulness. Some element in the
passage of time, perhaps changes in season or in reports of
local rapes, had a greater influence upon most women's fears
than did the experimental intervention upon the Defense
women's fears. This decrease across all three groups was
similar to the downward trend over time in practices of

avoidant behaviors.

Hypothesis 5: Self-efficacy expectancies. Women

 

trained in self-defense will embrace more assertive versus
dependent strategies (outcome expectancies) for deterring
sexual assailants than will the control women. Defense
women will also have greater confidence (self-efficacy) in
their ability to carry through with such assertive behaviors
if assaulted than will the control women. These changes
will persist over time.

The women were presented with two matrices that
explored their outcome and efficacy expectancies across

three assault situations (by an acquaintance, an unarmed

74
stranger, and an armed stranger). On the first matrix they
rated the perceived effectiveness (outcome expectancies) of
certain escape strategies. On the second, they rated their
personal confidence (self-efficacy) in performing each
response. Factor analyses yielded two factors per matrix,
with mace items not fitting clearly into either factor.
Outcome expectancies were thus divided into assertive
strategies, dependent strategies, and mace strategies
scales. Parallel scales, assertive behaviors, dependent
behaviors, and mace behaviors, were formed from the efficacy
matrix.

Changes in outcome expectancies were as predicted. As
can be seen in Figures 5 and 6, Defense-trained women
increased their outcome expectancies of the effectiveness of
assertive strategies and decreased their outcome
expectancies of the effectiveness dependent strategies.
Assertive strategies included such assault responses as
"punch and kick," "scream," and "run." The three groups
were statistically equivalent on this measure at pretest.
Over time, both Defense and Motivation women reported
significant increases in their confidence in such assertive
strategies. The increase by the Defense women was most
dramatic, as they showed a statistically greater belief in
the effectiveness of such strategies than either the
Motivation or the Fitness groups at both posttest and
follow-up.

A different pattern was observed in women's beliefs in

OMNONdSS-O. M‘fl-QQMQCQ

“M'OCM-iai-OC HIMDZH'UHG

75

Hm 8
”TM “TNT!!! MT"! ITRITEOIEO

 

Hutu—onus: swam:
Hoonvnnou common
5." .. Hremtcat rnursocou comma

, [(2. 84) - 51.8om

 

 

 

5(2, 60) - 3.56*

 

[(2, 48) - 1.49

 

 

 

I I l 1
m "'1 rowan-w
nut
HZ. 97) - 1.79 [(2. 98) - 28.18m [(2. 98) - 9.08***

"M! I
swoon: MOTH“!!! NWT STRATEGIC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.8
L‘ F 2. 60 ' 5.47**
/- + _( I
8.8 . /
/’ .-.-“M £(2’ 48) . 3'84*
...-"M-..-
8.4 q .’—"—.
/’ /
8.: '
s .
2.8 .
v *
Hoar-must snmn [(29 3‘) ' 3-‘2
Hnonvmou cannot:
2.0 .IH I
m m: mow-Ir
mt

£(zs 98) < 1 £12. 98) . 9.05m .F.(2’ 98) . 10.19***

*g< .05
**g< .01
“*g< .001

76
the effectiveness of dependent strategies in deterring an
assailant. These included such behaviors as "plead, cry,"
"verbally stall," and "make self look unattractive or sick."
Again, the three groups were statistically equivalent on
this measure at pretest. Over time, the Defense women
significantly decreased their beliefs in the efficacy of
such behaviors while the two controls significantly
increased their beliefs. At posttest, the Defense women's
lower expectancies of passive strategies differed sharply
from those of the Motivation and Fitness women. This
difference was sustained at follow-up.

The use of mace did not fit into either the assertive
nor the dependent strategies scales, thus it was analyzed
separately. There were no significantly detectable
differences in these groups' perceptions of the
effectiveness of mace at either pretest or follow-up.

The efficacy expectancy results are presented in
Figures 7 and 8. Again, the results matched the
predictions. Defense-trained women became more confident in
their abilities to act assertively in assault situations, as
compared to their judgments of their skills before training
and those of the controls.

Assertive self-efficacy expectancies tapped women's
beliefs in their abilities to successfully punch, kick,
scream, and run when assaulted. At pretest, the groups
differed statistically. The Motivation group was

significantly more confident than the Fitness group, and the

77

NW 7
III-EFF!” INFECTION!" MT"! “Vim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

   

 

 

 

 

o
no
2
g ... ,f_(2, 82) - 69.50***
a
T
5 9.4
r u t {(2, 60) < I
. 3.:
I:
n
a s
‘{ 4m, 48) . 1.71
a 4.0 "
8 /
“0 oar-octane swam:
‘m‘llfllvnflfl comets
‘ ‘ Hmsrcal. ”museum:
' I I
m not ration-u-
m:
[(2. 98) - 4.94" [(2, 98) I 1819*“ in. 97) a 5.57”
nuts
our-emcee: metronome. men: muons
__ ‘_F_(2. 60) < I
.W
'.! AM. M
o W
t
E F(2. 48) < I
'o‘ 8 ”If,
s ‘ .../l”.
o
E ‘0. q
u
a
v
I
I'.
9 4.9 1
A". fihfiiifl'éoam'ot a"
‘ ‘ "PHYSICAL nurse common .£(2. 82) < I
' I I
m roar roLLou-ur
no:
[(2. 98) - 4.5m [(2. 97) - 1.19 [(2, 97) - 5.39"
t
g < .05
“ g < .01

mg< .001

78
Defense group was statistically equivalent to both controls.
Over time, the Defense women significantly increased their
assertive self-efficacy perceptions, so that they were more
confident than both of the control groups at posttest. This
confidence declined somewhat during the next six months.
Still, the defense women remained the most confident of the
three groups and remained significantly more confident of
their assertive skills at follow-up than at pretest.

Self—efficacy expectations of dependent responses to
assailants followed a different pattern. Here again, the
groups were not equivalent at pretest. The Defense and
Fitness women believed themselves to be significantly less
efficacious than the Motivation women in their abilities to
plead, cry, verbally stall, and make themselves look
unattractive and weak in assault situations. However, there
were no significant changes in any of the groups over time,
so that at follow-up the relationships between groups
differed only slightly from pretest relationships. At that
later time, the Defense women felt significantly less
confident in their ability to respond dependently than
either control group.

There were no clear trends in Defense women's
self-efficacy expectations of mace responses. At pretest,
Defense and Fitness women had only moderate confidence in
their ability to use mace while Motivation women were
significantly more sure of their mace skills. By posttest

and follow-up, the groups were equivalent on this measure,

 

79

mainly due to the Motivation group's drop in confidence.
The present self-defense course taught women that
assertive responses were the most effective rape deterrents
and trained women in their use. The course also questioned
the overall effectiveness of passive responses to
assailants. Hypothesis 5 reflected this perspective and was
supported by the data. Compared to the two control groups,
the Defense women believed that assertive strategies were
more effective in deterring assailants and that passive
strategies were less effective. They also increased their
confidence in their abilities to successfully carry through

such assertive strategies with assailants.

Personality variables. No hypotheses were made as to

 

the effects of self-defense training upon personality
variables. However, the repeated-measures MANOVA
encompassing the five personality scales (self-esteem,
personal and political locus of control, and masculine and
feminine sex role identity) revealed a main effect for Time
(multivariate §[5,90] = 2.51, g < .05). Having passed this

threshold of significance, further analyses were undertaken.

Paired t_tests, comparing the pretest and follow-up
scores within each of the groups, were performed for each of
the five variables. Only two of the 15 comparisons reached

statistical significance. Both involved the Defense women

80
only. They increased, over an 8-month time span, their
self-esteem and "masculine" sex-role identity.
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale measured self-esteem

from low self esteem (l) to high self esteem (4). Changes

 

 

over time are presented in Figure 9. The Defense group was
the only one to report a statistically significant increase.
Still, in comparisons across groups, the Defense,
Motivation, and Fitness women were statistically equivalent
at both pretest and follow-up.

The Short BSRI assessed sex-role identity on a scale of

very uncharacteristic (l) to very characteristic (7). These

 

 

results are graphed in Figures 10 and 11. The Defense women
increased their perceptions of themselves as masculine and
did not significantly alter their self-perceptions as
feminine. In the literature, high masculinity has been
characterized as a dominant, assertive, and agentic style of
interacting. Despite this increase by the Defense women,
there were no statistically detectable between-group
differences at pretest or follow-up. Here, as with
self-esteem, though defense training appeared to have had a
lasting impact upon women's personalities, the changes were
not large enough to distinguish the Defense-trained women

from the controls.

INN-CON "f’fl.

81

 

 

 

 

 

 

nus: o
3.4 PERCEPTION W CCU-£811!!!
9.9 .
,_:_(42) - 2.27*
8.! ..
- '_t_(31) < I
a l A
Hoar-8mm: mom:
HMTIVRTIDW COITROLO
HPNYIICDI. "TIES! OUTIDLO
’ I I
m rattan-or
nut
in. 95) < I {(2. 95) < I
i
2 < .05
** 2 < .0)

M"'2<.OOl

04-0324 MZHFCOUDI

Odo-8.4 Haul—an'fl

82

HOUR! 10
”MINE TM"!

“a * (_t_(29) = 4.63

 

,£(43) . -3.03**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.7 .
£(25) < l
4.8
Hour-ornate: sworn:
Hnonvmou CONTROLS
‘ ‘ Hrmucm. runes: comma
' f7 I I 1
n: roLLou—ur
tin:
5(2. 97) < 1 [(2, 97) - 4.3o*
noun 1:
o mums: no":
8.:
_t_(29) - -l.58
'0. ... £(25) < 1
”M.
“M.
8.0 .. 3(43) < I
3.8 .
How-mm amour:
Huonvmou comm:
'o‘ Hmvoxcm. "mos comm
5.3 T 1 I
n: rm
"HE
£(2. 97) a 2.10 5(2. 97) - 1.42
t
g < .05
** g < .01

“92‘ .001

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

Summagy of Findings

 

By comparing the pretraining, end-of—training, and
6-month posttraining reports of three naturally-assembled
groups of women (Defense women, Motivation controls, Fitness
controls), this study assessed the effects of a self-defense
course. The project's design improved upon prior related
works by including a follow-up phase, by emphasizing
specific behaviors and attitudes related to assault
deterrence in addition to the traditional attention to
general personality traits, and by attempting to link

observations to psychological theories.

To briefly review the findings, the three groups of
women were largely equivalent on the assault-relevant
measures at pretest. Participation in this defense training
program had significant impact upon those behaviors and
attitudes that had correlated with assault deterrence in
interviews with assaulted women (Bart, 1981; McIntyre, 1980;
Queen's Bench Foundation, 1976). Defense-trained women

increased their reports of vigilant behaviors, their

83

84
perceptions of physical strength, their belief in the
effectiveness of assertive behaviors to deter assaults, and
their confidence in their ability to act assertively in
assault situations. They also increased reports of
self-esteem and the "masculinity" of their
self-descriptions. These changes were significant both over
time (with the exception of the personality variables) and
in comparison with the controls. Defense training did not
impact their reported use of avoidant behaviors nor their
fear of sexual assault.

More specifically, Defense-trained women reported more
frequent use of vigilant behaviors but no change in their
use of avoidant behaviors in comparison to their own pretest
reports and to the controls at all times. Thus, while
Defense women did not increase their exposure to risks, they
reported being more vigilant, wary, and ready when they
sensed risk in the course of their normal activities. It
was precisely this combination of behaviors, to "observe
safety precautions" and "be wary," that the Queen's Bench
Foundation (1976, p.109) recommended as strategies for women
to reduce their likelihood of assault.

Other findings were that Defense-trained women
perceived themselves as stronger and faster, again relative
to both their own pretest self-descriptions and the control
groups' self-reports at all times. Strength and speed may
be important considerations in women's decisions to resist

assailants. Fear decreased significantly over time, a drop

85
that was observed in all three groups. The explanation of
this decline was unclear, but the parallel reports across
groups suggested that it was not due to training. The
equivalent fear levels of the controls and Defense women
also implied that the latter group continued to be aware of
the danger or rape, also recommended by the Queen's Bench
Foundation (1976), despite the trained women's clear gains
in other aspects of assault prevention.

Participation in defense training also increased
women's outcome and efficacy expectancies of assertive
resistances to potential assailants. As Defense women's
confidence in the effectiveness of assertive responses
climbed, their confidence in the efficacy of more dependent
responses declined, though their view of their abilities to
act dependently did not change. These changes implied a
strengthening of fighting skills, another of the Queen's
Bench Foundations's (1976) recommendations.

Personality measures were included at pretest and
follow-up to reassess changes reported in previous studies.
Significant changes were observed only among Defense-trained
women, who reported increased self-esteem and "masculinity"
of their self-perceptions. In the literature, masculine
characteristics were highly desired by respondents of both
genders and were believed to relate to an instrumental,
agentic, assertive style of interacting. These findings
suggested that the experience of participating in

self-defense training may have affected deeper layers of the

86
personality than just assault-relevent behaviors and
attitudes. However, these changes were not large enough to

distinguish Defense women from the controls.

Development of an Assertive Style

 

One argument against the provision of self-defense
training is that by inflating women's confidence in their
defense skills, such training may increase women's exposing
themselves to greater risks than they can realistically
handle. This perception of training leading to greater
risk-taking was not supported by these data. All groups in
the present study, including the Defense-trained women,
reported similar levels of precautions to avoid obviously
dangerous situations. Staying at home or finding an escort
due to fear of going out alone at night are some of the ways
these women reported limiting their exposure to risks.
However, frequent use of such avoidant behaviors has been
shown to be more effective in reducing property crimes than
personal victimization (Riger & Gordon, 1981). Such
restrictions cannot prevent assaults in the women's own
homes or by people they know. This is especially important
in view of the relatively high frequency of such assaults.

Protection from rape demands a defensive style that
women can always have available, on the streets, in their
homes, and among both strangers and acquaintances (Cohn et

al., 1979). These Defense women appeared to have developed

87
such a defensive style. Their reports of more frequent use
of vigilant behaviors implied an increased wariness that
could serve to protect them from dangers in the home and
minimize their risks of being assaulted elsewhere. Due to
this vigilance, one can speculate that they might be less
likely to be surprised or to naively linger in potentially
dangerous situations. This again was consistent with
research findings that rape avoiders were more likely than
raped women to be rude and assertive in the casual
conversations that often proceeded their assaults.

Possibly the most important contributor to such a
defensive style were the Defense women's beliefs (their
outcome expectancies) that their assertive responses to
assailants could impact the outcome of the assault. Neither
control group displayed a similar level of confidence that
any of their own behaviors, dependent or assertive, would
deter sexual assault. Added to this general belief in their
potential efficaciousness, Defense women developed greater
confidence in their ability to act assertively against
assailants.

Taken together, these several changes by Defense women
suggest that they may have gained a sense of control over
their fear of the threat of rape. Their maintenance of
avoidant behaviors and increase in vigilant behaviors may
influence, to some extent, their likelihood of being
assaulted. Their higher outcome and efficacy expectancies

of assertive responses also suggest that they believed

88
they could have some control over the outcome of assaults

they could not prevent.

Theoretical Implications of a Sense of Control

Several psychological theories offer predictions as to
how these changed attitudes and self—perceptions might
translate into behaviors during and following assault. The
theoretical applications that follow are speculations only,

possible hypotheses for further studies on women and rape.

Self-efficacy. Bandura's (1982) theory predicts that

 

efficacy beliefs mediate efforts and outcomes. PeOple who
believe themselves to be highly efficacious are more likely
to persist in their efforts, even in face of aversive
events, until they succeed. In contrast, people who judge
themselves inefficacious dwell on their personal deficiences
and overestimate obstacles. In experimental situations,
people with low efficacy slackened their efforts or did not
even attempt the task at hand (Bandura, 1982).

Beliefs in the effectiveness of assault resistance
strategies and in the capability to carry out such
strategies thus seem likely to influence, in interaction
with a rich array of situational variables, what resistances
women may consider and how long they may persevere in such
efforts in actual assault situations. In this study,

Defense women increased, over time and in comparison to the

89
controls, their outcome and efficacy expectations of
assertive responses. This combination of greater confidence
that resisting assertively could generally be effective and
that they personally had the skills to act assertively might
result, according to self-efficacy theory, in greater
willingness to fight back and persistence in these
struggles. Such a persistant, assertive style of resistance
correlated with rape deterrence across a range of interview
studies with assaulted women (Bart, 1981; McIntyre, 1980;

Queen's Bench Foundation, 1976).

Attribution theory. Defense-trained women believed

 

that they had greater control over assault outcome than
untrained women. Perceptions of control may not only affect
behaviors during assault, they also seem likely to influence
post-assault recovery. This is an important issue as
one-quarter of a sample of emergency room rape victims who
had received some crisis intervention treatment reported
that they had not recovered four to six years after their
rapes (Burgess & Holmstrom, 1979) and the majority of
uncounseled raped women in another community sample reported
as many symptoms six or more years after their rapes as a
group of recently raped women seeking counseling (Smith,
1982).

According to attribution theory, a model for
understanding people's attempts to make sense of what

happens to them, blame is an important factor in coping with

90
aversive life events. Although generally people tend to
take more responsibility for good occurrences than bad ones
and for expected events rather than unexpected, women and
victims follow a different pattern. They tend to blame
themselves for aversive events, such as victimizations and
failures (Frieze, 1979). In rape situations, when such
self-blame is behavioral (specific attributions to some act
or its omission), it generally is adaptive. Behavioral
self-blame is different from characterological self-blame
(global attributions to some personality characteristic or
flaw), which correlate with depression and learned
helplessness (Janoff-Bulman, 1979).

Raped women who blame their own behaviors generally
recover better. Janoff-Bulman (1979) attributed this faster
recovery to a link between self-blame and control. If a
woman believes that she somehow contributed to the
situation--if she feels responsible for it--she establishes
a sense of control over her rape. Burgess and Holmstrom
(1979) made similar observations. Victims who were able to
come up with explanations for the reasons of their attacks
appeared more likely than victims who could not find
explanations to develop some sense of control that appeared
to aid recovery.

Self-blame also may serve a preventative function. In
a study of raped women seeking counseling, self-blame
motivated actions designed to reestablish a sense of safety,

such as improving home security or increasing behavioral

91
restrictions (Janoff-Bulman, 1979).

By focusing upon behavioral responses to attacks and
their potential for influencing assault outcome,
self-defense training may have accentuated the positive
retrospective and prospective functions of self-blame. With
respect to recovery, raped women who take defense training
after their rapes may learn techniques that perhaps could
have stopped their assailants. Women raped after training
may be better able to understand the behavioral interactions
that contributed to their assaults. With respect to
prevention, trained women are sensitized to a range of
vigilant behaviors that they could adopt in order to lessen
their probability of assault. In teaching women to focus on
behavioral responses, defense training may have heightened
the tendency to make specific behavioral attributions of

causality.

Social support. Social support has been demonstrated

 

to be an important predictor of good emotional adjustment to
a variety of stressful life events, including rape. Raped
women who perceive their social network as helpful are
significantly less depressed and experience significantly
fewer symptoms than raped women who tell no one or who
perceive their networks as not helpful (Webb, 1982).

Many raped women do not receive adequate support. A
substantial number of raped women (estimates range from 22%

to 40%) do not discuss their experiences with virtually

92
anyone (Webb, 1982). Only 58% of a community sample of
raped women told at least one significant other (friend,
relative, or spouse) of their rapes within a week of their
occurrences. The remaining 42% told no one or only
professional helpers.

Women who share their rapes with members of their
network often alienate these significant others. The
expression of self-blame and negative affect, important to
recovery from rape, ironically also causes assaulted women to
appear less attractive to the others with whom they shared
these feelings. Raped women also find that other women and,
to a lesser extent, men in their networks blame and derogate
them for their rape (Coates et al., 1979; Krulewitz et al.,
1977). These observations have prompted suggestions that
postrape counseling include intervention with the raped
women's support network members.

A significant part of the defense training course was
social support. Students were supported in their feelings
of power and their feelings of powerlessness. They shared
stories of their victimizations. Another benefit was the
Defense students' introduction to a network of activist,
feminist women. Because these women were knowledgeable
about rape, because they did not blame the assaulted woman,
and because they had experience helping other victims, they
were able to support the Defense students who reached out to
them. Anecdotal evidence for this point was the experience

of one study participant who suffered prolonged, negative

93
reactions to her rape a year earlier. During training, she
met individually with the defense instructor to talk about
her shame, anger, and depression. This helped, as did a
subsequent referral to a therapist experienced with raped
women. At follow-up, the student described herself as
having changed considerably:

I feel much more confident and comfortable with myself.

I've diligently worked to resolve old conflicts. I've

decided there is no point in being secretive with

friends. If they can't accept me as is, it reflects
more on them than on me. So I feel more secure in my
relations with others too.

The defense instructor also modeled and openly
discussed how to support assaulted women. In addition to
increasing Defense women's capacity to support others, this
instruction may also have served to inoculate these students
against future mixed messages and negative reactions by
members of their support networks. Being able to identify
what other raped women have found helpful in recovering may
motivate these women to seek other supports if those that

they first turn to after an assault behave in ways that are

less than helpful.

The illusion of control. Across situations and

 

studies, researchers in the area of control have concluded
that (a) perceived loss of control results in stress when
it is acute and learned helplessness when chronic, and (b)

enhanced sense of control has positive psychological

94
consequences (Langer, 1979). With rape, developing a sense
of control may be empowering. Recall that defense students
not only increased their estimation of their ability to stop
assaults, they also increased their reported self-esteem and
the "masculinity" of their self-descriptions (i.e., saw
themselves as more assertive and independent).

With respect to rape, however, any sense of control
seems partially illusory. Installing better locks and
learning how to fight will never guarantee protection. All
women continue to live with the possibility of rape. As one
woman recently wrote the editor of the Michigan State
University student paper:

... Believe me, none can predict how s/he will react

when surprised by an attacker. None can know the

disbelief, the shock, and finally, the horror of what
one is facing: a rape and possible death....Do not
tell us that if you scream, if you walk confidently, if
you glare at your assaulter, he will just automatically

vanish like a bad dream. Rape is not something a

person walks into; the act itself involves the element
of surprise. (State News, August 1, 1982).

 

Women do not deserve blame for their rapes nor can they
expect to gain total control over preventing them. Still,
learning self-defense appears to have positive effects, both
in heightening women's ability to defend themselves in some
situations and in affording the psychological benefits of
believeing that they have at least some control over what

they fear.

 

95

Comments on the Study

 

Cautions. A few cautions are in order in generalizing
from these results. As in virtually all related works, the
present findings were based entirely upon self-reports and
may be biased. Also, this study is a program evaluation of
three repetitions of one self-defense course taught by a
single instructor. Wortman (1983) argued that the
evaluation of an exemplary program provides important
information on the benefit to individuals under "ideal
conditions of use", which is different information than the
evaluation of program effectiveness under "average
conditions of use" (p. 238). The self-defense training
program assessed here may well be exemplary. The instructor
is a competent, sensitive, and charismatic teacher and
national leader of the feminist self-defense training
organization. To what degree the impact of her instruction
would be duplicated in similar courses taught by other
instructors is unknown. It seems likely, though, that the
not uncommon practice of having a male self-defense
instructor for women or even mixed-sex classes would greatly
alter the experience's impact upon female students.

Nearly all of the present participants were
middle-class, white, university students living on a
suburban campus and its immediate surrounds.
Generalizations to older and younger women, to women of

different racial backgrounds, and to women living in large

96

cities are uncertain.

Strengths. The findings of this evaluation of a

 

self-defense training program seem clear and impressive.
They indicate the utility of assessing outcomes relevant to
the program being assessed rather than general,
situation-nonspecific outcomes.

Of particular importance was the self-efficacy measure
developed for this present study. It proved both reliable
and capable of distinguishing among groups of women. A
contribution to understanding the impact of efficacy
perceptions upon behaviors was its inclusion of outcome
expectancies, an aspect omitted in much of the current
efficacy research. In sexual assault situations, outcome
beliefs may prove to be a more powerful, or at least equally
powerful, predictor of actual behaviors than self-efficacy
judgments. As McIntyre (1980) observed, few of the women
who deterred assailants possessed the size, strength, or
skills to overcome their attackers; yet, they succeeded in
deterring rape, perhaps because they assertively and
persistently resisted. Most assailants, it appeared, were
seeking easier targets. These women's unwillingness to give
in or give up seemed to have been primary, rather than the
skill with which they fought. No study to date has
uncovered a relationship between women's size or fighting
skills and deterrence, but then this could be due to

weaknesses in existing research rather than the nonexistence

 

97
of such relationships.

More work is needed on understanding outcome
expectancies and their relationship to assault deterrence.
In future studies, it would be informative to include more
than one possible outcome: for example, a matrix depicting
outcome beliefs of deterrence and one depicting beliefs of
injury, mutilation, and possible death. This last outcome
is especially important in view of research that has shown
that safety is what women most thought about during assaults
(Burgess & Holmstrom, 1979). Some women may believe that
assertive strategies are more likely than dependent
strategies to lead to escape, but choose not to actively
resist because they also believe that assertive strategies
might also lead to greater injury and personal harm.
Women's choices in rape situations may depend upon the
relative valences they place upon each of these outcomes,
and these valances may change in reaction to many
situational variables beyond their control. For example,
women who might choose not to fight their assailant at the
start of the assault may change their strategies if their
assailants become violent despite the lack of assertive
resistances to the attacker's sexual and domination demands.
It would be useful to understand what in assailants'
behaviors and in rape situations have most influenced
assaulted women's choices to resist dependently,

assertively, or not at all.

98

Implications for Further Research. This study
demonstrated that this self-defense training program
increased women's confidence in their abilities to deter
sexual assault. Yet, as is typical of research, the results
raise many new questions. These include the duration of
these effects and whether short workshops would help
maintain outcome and behavioral confidence over time. There
is also the question of how Defense-trained women will
handle actual sexual harrassments and assaults in the coming
years.

Other questions concern which features of the training
experience contributed to the observed changes. If taken
out of the present feminist philosophical framework, would
the information and skill-training aspects of training have
been as effective? This is a particularly important issue
given current educational policies that prohibit single-sex
courses and the common practice of providing male martial
arts instructors or police officers as self-defense
instructors. Would a ten-week experience with just words,
the common group therapy model, be equally effective as this
combination of words and defense skill-building in
increasing women's sense of control over their rape-related
feelings? Was this course long enough for most women to
develop lasting competencies in assertive resistances?

Another question concerns the identification of
effective resistance strategies. Though research based on

interviews with assaulted women has consistently found that

99
assertive defenses correlate with assault deterrence,
methodological flaws limit confidence in this conclusion.
Statistical analyses of the Queen's Bench Foundation's
(1976) data, the principal document on rape prevention,
included multiple chi-square comparisons without control for
Type 1 errors. Some of the reported findings may be simply
chance variations. In addition, resistance studies have
usually been based, like the larger literature on rape,
almost entirely on women who volunteer to talk with
researchers or those who seek formal legal, medical, and
therapeutic help following rape. Little is known about the
experiences of women who keep the trauma to themselves, or
of those who deter an assault before physical contact is
made. If a randomly-selected population were sensitively
interviewed concerning assault resistances, the results may
be different. That was the strategy followed by Russell
(1982) and her findings, that at least 14% of married women
had been raped by their husbands, differed from more
conventional studies derived from biased samplings and more

superficial questioning.

Conclusion

 

Women who learned self-defense perceived themselves as
more vigilant, as more physically competent, and as more

efficacious in deterring assailants than women in either

lOO

comparison group. These effects, which have been maintained
at least 6 months after training's end, were the exact
behaviors and attitudes that previous studies had identified
as primary to women's reducing their vulnerability to rape.
An enhanced sense of control appeared to undergird these
several changes. Women who face an assailant believing
themselves better able to influence the assault outcome seem
less likely to be raped; and, if raped, may be better able
to use this same sense of personal control to recover more
quickly. In short, this self-defense program was effective
in its stated goal: increasing women's sense of power to

prevent sexual assault.

LIST OF REFERENCES

101

LIST OF REFERENCES

Amir, M. (1971). Patterns in forcible rape. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

 

Atkeson, B. M., Calhoun, K. S., & Morris, K. T. (1982). Ag
examination of variables associated with victim
resistance to raps. Manuscript submitted for
publication.

 

 

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying
theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
a, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human
agency. American Psychologist, 11, 122-147.

 

Bart, P. B. (1975, June). Rape doesn't end with a kiss.
Viva, pp. 39—41, 100-101.

Bart, P. B. (1981). A study of women who both were raped
and avoided rape. Journal of Social Issues, 21,
123-137.

 

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological
androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 3;, 634-643.

 

Bem, S. L. (1981a). Bem sex-role inventory: Professional
manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.

Bem, S. L. (1981b). The BSRI and gender schema theory: A
reply to Spence and Helmreich. Psychological Review,
ss, 369-371.

Bernard L. C. (1980). Multivariate analyses of new sex
role formulations and personality. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, gs, 323-336.

 

Bochner, A. P., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1980). Multivariate
analysis of variance: Techniques, models, and
applications in communication research. In P. R. Monge &
J. N. Cappella (Eds.), Multivariats techniqges in human
communications research (PP. 143-174). New York:
Academic Press.

 

Bray, J. G., & Maxwell, S. E. (1982). Analyzing and
interpreting significant MANOVAs. Review of Educational
Research, s3, 340-367.

102

Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson,
P., & Rosencrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes:
A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, gg,
59-79.

 

Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women, and
rape. New York: Bantam.

 

Burgess, A. N., & Homstrom, L. L. (1979). Rape: Crisis
and recovery, Bowie, MD: Brady Co.

 

Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape.
Journal of Personality and Social Pyschology, gg,

 

Burt, M. R. (1981). Rape myths, rape definitions, and
probability of conviction. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 11, 212-230.

 

 

Coates, D., Wortman, C. B., & Abbey, A. (1979). Reactions
to victims. In I. H. Frieze, D. Bar-Tal, & J. S. Carroll
(Eds.), New approaches to social problems (pp. 21-52).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Cohn, E. S., Kidder, L. B., & Harvey, J. (1978). Crime
prevention vs. victimization prevention: The psychology
of two different reactions. Victimology, 3, 285-296.

 

Crandall, R. (1973). The measurement of self-esteem and
related constructs. In J. P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver
(Eds.), Measures of social psychological attitudes, Ann
Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

 

Dobson, C. Goudy, w. J., Keith, P.M., & Powers, E. (1979).
Further analyses of Rosenberg's self-esteem scale.
Psychological Reports, 33, 639-641.

 

Donaldson, C. S. (1979). The effects of self-defense
training on women's self-esteem and locus of control
orientation. Dissertation Abstracts International,
39, 3905B.

 

Dubow, P., McCabe, E., & Kaplan, G. (1979). Reactions to
crime: A critical review of the literature, executive
summary. Washington, DC: National Institute of Law
Enforcement and Criminal Justice.

 

 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (1980). Uniform crime
reports of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.

 

103

Feild, H. S. (1978). Attitudes toward rape: A comparative
analysis of police, rapists, crisis counselors, and
citizens. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
'36, 156-179.

 

Frieze, I. H. (1979). Perceptions of battered wives. In
I. H. Frieze, D. Bar-Tal, & J. 8. Carroll, (Eds.), Neg
approaches to social_problems (pp. 79-108). San
Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Gordon, M. T., & Riger, S. (1979). Fear and avoidance: A
link between attitudes and behavior. Victimology, 4,
395-402.

 

Gordon, M. T. , Riger, S., LeBailly, R. K.. & Heath, L.
(1980). Crime, women, and the quality of urban life.
Signs, 5(3), $144-$160.

Harris, R. M. (1981). Conceptual complexity and preferred
coping strategies in anticipation of temporally
predictable and unpredictable threat. Journal of
Personality and Social Psyghology, 41, 380-390.

 

 

Hensley, W. E. (1977). Differences between males and
females on Rosenberg scale of self-esteem. Psychological

 

Hensley, W. E., & Roberts, M. K. (1976). Dimensions of
Rosenberg's self-esteem scale. Psychological Reports,
3g, 583-584.

 

Hokanson, J. E., Willers, K. R., & Koropsak, E. (1968). The
modification of autonomic responses during aggressive
interchanges. Journal of Personality, 36, 386-404.

 

Hunter, J. E. (1977, Feb.). Cluster analysis:
Reliability, construct validity, and the multiple
indicators approach to measurement. Paper presented at
workshop of the 0.3. Civil Service Commission.

 

 

 

Hunter, J. B., Cohen, S. H., & Nicol, T. S. (1982).
PACKAGE manual. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State
University, East Lansing.

 

Jacques, J. M., & Chason, K. J. (1977). Self-esteem and low
status groups: A changing scene? Sociological
Quarterly, lg, 399-412.

 

 

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus
behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and
rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
19, 1798-1809.

 

104

Jones, W. H., Chernovetz, M. B., & Hansson, R. 0. (1978).
The enigma of androgyny: Differential implications for
males and females? Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 33, 298-313.

 

Klein, H. M., & Willerman, L. (1979). Psychological
masculinity and femininity and typical and maximal
dominance expression in women. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,

31, 2059-2070.

 

 

Krulewitz, J. E., & Nash, J. E. (1979). Effects of rape
victim resistance, assault outcome, and sex of observer
on attributions about rape. Journal of Personality,

‘31, 557-574. '

 

Langer, E. J. (1979). The illusion of incompetence. In L.
C. Permuter & R. A. Monty (Eds.), Choice and perceived
control (pp. 301-314). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

 

Larwood, L., O'Neal, B., & Brennan, P. (1977). Increasing
the physical aggressiveness of women. Journal of Social
Psychology, 101, 97-101.

 

 

Malamuth, N. M., Haber, S., & Fesbach, S. (1980). Testing
hypotheses regarding rape: Exposure to sexual violence,
sex differences, and the "normality" of rapists. Journal
of Research in Personality, 33, 121-137.

 

Mastria, M. A. (1975). A study of assertiveness as a
function of training in rape prevention and assertiveness
training. Dissertation Abstracts International, 3g,
19238-19248.

 

McIntyre, J. J. (1980). Victims' response to rape:
Alternate outcomes. Final report, Grant 29045,
Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.

 

 

Mirels, H.L. (1970). Dimensions of internal versus external
control. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
33, 226-228.

 

Queen's Bench Foundation. (1976). Rape: Prevention and
resistance. San Francisco.

 

 

Riger, S., & Gordon, M. T. (1979). The structure of rape
prevention beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 3, 186-190.

Riger, S., 5 Gordon, M. T. (1981). The fear of rape: A
study in social control. Journal of Social Issues,
31, 71-92.

Riger, S., Gordon, M. T., & LeBailly, R. (1979). Women's
fear of crime: From blaming to restricting the victim.
Victimology, 3, 274-284.

 

105

Riger, S., Gordon, M. T., & LeBailly, R. (1982). Coping
with urban crime: Women's use of precautionary
behaviors. American Journal of Community Psychology,
19, 369-386.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent
self-image. Princenton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York:
Basic.

 

Russell, D. E. (1982). Rape in marriage. New York:
MacMillan.

Russell, D. E. H., & Howell, N. (1983). The prevalence of
rape in the United States revisited. Signs, 3,
688-695.

Sanday, P. R. (1981). The sociocultural context of
rape: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Social
Issues, 31, 5-27.

Skogan, W. G., Lewis, D. A., Podolefsky, A. P., Dubow, F.,
Gordon, M. T. (1982). The reactions to crime project:
Executive summary. Washinton, DC: National Institute of
Justice.

 

Smith, J. A. (1982). Psychological features of rape
victims: Trauma, counseling, and recovery. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, MI.

Stake, J. E., & Orlofsky, J. L. (1981). On the use of
global and specific measures in assessing the self-esteem
of males and females. Sex Roles, 1, 653-661.

 

Strickland, B. R., & Haley, W. E. (1980). Sex differences
on the Rotter I-E Scale. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 33, 930-939.

 

Thornton, B., Robbins, M. A., & Johnson, J. A. (1981).
Social perception of the rape victim's culpability: The
influence of respondents' personal-environmental causal
attribution tendencies. Human Relations, 33, 225-237.

Tyler, T. R. Impact of directly and indirectly experienced
events: The origin of crime-related judgments and
behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 33, 13-28.

106

Webb, C. (1982, September). The effects of the social
network on the rape victim. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC.

 

 

Weis, K., & Borges, S. (1973). Victimology and rape: The
case of the legitimate victim. Issues in Criminality,
3, 71-115.

 

Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experi-
mental design. New York: McGraw Hill.

 

Wortman, P. M. (1983). Evaluation research: A methodo-
logical perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 33,
223-260.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

SELF-DEFENSE COURSE DESCRIPTION

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Health & Physical Education

WOMEN‘S SELF-DEFENSE
HPE 107C

Class Description:

Narrowly defined, self-defense is "the right to protect oneself against
violence or threatened violence with'whatever force or means are reason-
ably necessary.” A.broader definition would identify it further as a
process of unlearning thinking and behaving like a victim. It is a
reclaiming of a saise of physical integrity that results, as Py Batenan
has pointed out, in turning our fears into anger at intrusions upon our
self-respect. It is the process of insuring that we have options fran
which to:make reasonable choices in attach situations.

For most of us, this process takes time and work. By focusing on the
following more immediate goals in the next fewHweeks, we can get a good
start. The goals of this class are to enable women 1) to become familiar
‘with.a variety of physical, verbal and psychological self-protection
techniques; 2) to begin to develop a sense of physical well-being and
confidence in one's judgment in.determining appropriate responses to
violent or potentially violent situations: and 3) to examine the politics
of woman harassment/assault in this culture in order that.we:might¢develop
successful strategies for collectively and individually insuring our
safety and lessening our vulnerability to attack.

Class Outline:

 

week I Introduction
Timon-ups
62 Introduction

WEek II warm-upwith.62 review
Front snap kick/Front choke hold break
Side snap kick
linuuauifi:veapons/shields

‘Week III ‘Wanm-ups, front choke hold break review
Ground Defense (avoiding the fall, ground kicks/ spins, rolling
breaks, body tosses, departing)

‘Wall releases and wrist.Breaks, time permitting

‘WEek IV' Whrmrups and basics review
Six-Elbow'nrill and Back.Kick
Rear FurearmlGrab»Cwith shields)

‘Week‘v' Twanm-ups and basics review
Front choke hold break-review
Rear forearmugrarrdnafiuav
Introduction.to»blocking

1137

1(38

Week VI Cbnfrontation Training

‘Week VII Warm-ups and brief basic review
Introduction to Bludgecns: Evasion, Mobilizing the Follow-
Through and Backswing

‘Week VIII Wbunriux;
Introduction to Knife Defense
‘A. Evasion: Side-step review
B. Distractions: Clothing, sand, coins, makeshift shields, kicks
C. The Active Knife-Defense against a downward thrust.
D. Reactive Knives-Series of drills designed to provide
practice in thinking tactically in passive knife attacks.

‘Week IX Twnmmaux;
Defense Against Multiple Attackers
Gun Discussion
Improvisational‘Wbrk (Realistic Attacks)

weeij whereups and basics review
Improvisational workwwith various holds
Field Trip-Situation Analysis (thinking strategically)

Grading:

Instruction in this class progresses from simple self-defense techniques to
much more complicated self-defense strategies. New skills introduced each week
build on skills learned in preceding weeks. For this reason, attendance at
each class is essential and fully 70% of your grade will be based on this. The
remaining 30% will be based on class participation and performance.

Suggested Project:

Many women have found it helpful to keep a class journal over the course of
the term in which to record reactions to the class. problems, insights, feelings
about fear, aggression, pain, panic, confidence and whatever else participation in
. this class evokes.

Office Hours: -
I am usually in my office between 1:00 and l:45 p.m., Monday-Thursday and
will be happy to see people then. I'm also available to meet at odd hours through

the week by appointment. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or
concerns about class.

APPENDIX B

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

INTRODUCTION

We're doing a study on the eXperience of being a
woman. We're particularly interested in what women think

about safety and sexual assault. It's an important

 

study --so little is known about the degree of women's
fears and their strategies for coping with dangerous
situations.

In order to learn as much as we can about these issues,
we ask you a wide range of written questions. For most,
just circle the answer that best matches your views. For
others, we'd like you to tell us what you feel in your
own words.

Before you begin, I'd like you to look over this
consent form. It is our guarantee that your answers will be
kept totally confidential. In fact, it is the only time
we will ask for your name today. We will detach this
consent form before you begin the questionnaire. That
way your name can never be connected with your answers,
that way all your responses will remain anonymous. Take
a minute to look this form over and sign it if you agree
to again take part in this study. Please note your right
to discontinue your participation at any time.

(TAKE CONSENT FORM AND PUT IN SEPARATE ENVELOPE)

Now, to begin. Let me also remind you that when this
study is all done, sometime in the spring, we will be
sending you a summary of the overall results. And thank

you for all your help in this important study.
109

APPENDIX C

LETTER DESCRIBING STUDY

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

DEPARTMENT Of PSYCHOLOGY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN - 48824-1117
PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH BUILDING

April 1, 1982

Hello,

My name is Devorah Smith and I'm working on my doctorate in
clinical psychology. Right now, I'm doing a study on the
experience of being a woman at MSU, particularly what women
here on campus think about safety and sexual assault. I
think it's an important study as so little is known about
the degree of women's fears and their strategies for coping
with dangerous situations.

To learn about this, I'll be meeting with a wide cross-section
of students. Of special interest are women wanting to learn
self-defense. That's why I'm writing you. According to the
registrar's records, you at one time enrolled in HPR 107,
Women's Self-Defense. Would you be willing to help out?

What help entails is completing a survey questionnaire on
this topic. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.
You can complete it at my office (Department of Psychology
-- 41 Snyder) any time or I can bring the questionnaire to
your home. Someone, either myself or one of my research
assistants, will be calling you soon to make arrangements.

You don't have to do this. Participation in this study is
completely voluntary and totally confidential. However,

with your help, we can learn what women here think, feel,

and c0pe with. That's important information. It can be used
to help evaluate rape prevention services offered on campus.
And, when the study's completed, I'd like to share the
results with you in thanks for your help.

I look forward to talking with you and hope you will choose
to help out. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call. My office number is 355-9561. Leave a
message and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

Sincerely,

Devorah Smith, MA

110

APPENDIX D

PARTICIPANT TELEPHONE CONTACT OUTLINE

TELEPHONE CONTACT

Hello, is here?

 

This is . I'm a research assistant working

 

with Devorah Smith on her doctoral study of women's per-
ceptions of safety and sexual assault. Do you have a few
minutes to talk right now?
A. You may have gotten a letter in the mail
describing the study. Has it arrived yet?
Good, as you may remember . . . OK, then
let me tell you briefly about it . . .
B. You gave us your name while you were waiting
on the HPR line at registration. Let me take
this opportunity to tell you briefly about
this study.
The purpose of this study is to learn what women here at
MSU think about safety and sexual assault. It's an
approved doctoral study originating out of the Department
of Psychology here. We're going to be talking with women
all over campus, but we're particularly interested in
women like yourself who were at one time interested in
learning self-defense. We feel it's an important study
-- so little research has been done on women or on sexual

assault and women's strategies for coping with such

dangers.

We'd like to get YOUR views on these issues. What that
entails is completing a questionnaire. It will take
about 45 minutes of your time. You can do it at home or

at Devorah's office on campus. Whichever you choose.

111

112

And, of course, all your responses will be totally
confidential. In fact, we won't ask for your name

anywhere on the questionnaire.

Would you be willing to help us out? Good! Let's set up
a time to meet. (Let them choose location. If they
don't care, go with my office because we can better
control distractions. LOCATION NOT AS IMPORTANT AS

PARTICIPATION!)

APPENDIX E

RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE

11:3

Michigan State University
Department of Psychology

1. I freely consent to take part in this doctoral study on perceptions of
safety and sexual assault on campus.
Principal Researcher: Devorah Smith, MA
Under Supervision of: John Hurley, PhD
Professor of Psychology

2. This study and what my participation will involve have been explained to
me.

3. I understand that my participation will not affect my grade in any way,
nor does filling out this questionnaire guarantee any beneficial results
to me.

4. I have been told that I am free to discontinue my partiCipation at any
time without penalty.

5. I understand that all my answers will remain totally anonymous.

6. I understand that, at my request, I can received additional explanation of
the study after my participation is completed.

7. I give my permission to be contacted for later phases of this study.

Signed Date

 

Name (printed)

 

Address

 

 

The third phase of this study takes place in October, 1982. He'd like to
contact you then to invite your participation one last time. He also need to
know where to send the study's final results. Do you know where you'll be
living this fall?

Address

 

 

Phone

 

If not, who (preferably, but not necessarily, someone local) might know your
address then?

Contact Person

 

Address

 

Phone

 

111+

A SURVEY OF WOMEN'S PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY AND SEXUAL ASSAULT.

Now to begin. Remember, this study explores what students at MSU think about
safety and sexual assault. The questions that follow ask you to tell us about
yourself, your patterns of everyday behavior, and some of your opinions on
rape and sexual assault. Please be as truthful as you can. There are no
points we are trying to prove. He simply want to get as accurate a sense of
some of your thoughts and feelings on these issues as possible. Accordingly,
there are no good nor bad opinions, no smart nor foolish answers. Try not to
debate a long time over your answers. Simply put down what first comes into
your head.

He realize that on some questions it may be hard to choose among the
alternatives offered, but try anyway. We will have a better picture of your
stands on these issues if you complete all items. For each question, remember
to pick just 933 answer.

Let us thank you in advance for your help. Your answers will allow us to
better understand what women at MSU think and feel about sexual assault as
well as their strategies for coping with it.

PLACE YOUR PERSONAL CODE NUMBER HERE:

 

Remember, this code protects your anonymity. No where on this questionnaire
will I ask for your name. There is no way I nor anyone else will ever be able
to connect your answers to your identity.

1115

Introduction

This study explores what students at MSU think about safety and sexual
assault. The questions that follow ask you to tell us about yourself, your
patterns of everyday behavior, and some of your opinions on rape and sexual
assault. Please be as truthful as you can. There are no points we are trying
to prove. He simply want to get as accurate a sense of some of your thoughts
and feelings on these issues as possible. Accordingly, there are no good nor
bad opinions, no smart nor foolish answers. Try not to debate a long time
over your answers. Simply put down what first comes into your head.

In filling out this questionnaire, keep in mind that if you find a
question embarrassing or uncomfortably intrusive, you are at full liberty not
to answer it. Though we will have a better understanding of what women think
and feel and must cope with if you complete all items, we do not want this to
be a painful experience. Use your own judgment. And be assured that we have
designed this study so that there is no way that we will ever be able to trace
your answers to you. Also, if you have any feelings that get stirred up or
just want to share your reactions to this study, please give Devorah Smith a
call. She's the psychologist who organized this study. She's provided her
telephone number on the research card that you're keeping.

He also realize that on some questions it may be hard to choose among the
alternatives offered, but try anyway. He will have a better picture of your
stands on these issues if you complete all items. For each question, remember
to pick just ONE answer. After you've marked your answer, feel free to write
any explanatiEfi? or thoughts right on the page. We welcome all comments!

To help us read your responses correctly, we'd like a chart of your
typical way of writing numbers when you are in a hurry. Please write each of
the digits here.

TTTTTTTTT

As principal researcher on this project, let me thank you for all your
help thus far. Your answers will allow me to better understand what women at
MSU think about sexual assault and their strategies for c0ping with it. If
Yoqlhave any questions or comments at all, please do not hesitate to give me a
ca .

Thank you,
Devorah Smith

Let's begin with some background information about yourself.

116

Fill in 353

blank or circle the answer that best describes yourself. Choose just one

answer for each item.

Did you participate in this study at the start of Spring term? Yes No

Your age

Your height ft. in.

 

Current school standing
1. freshperson
2. sophomore
3. junior

Major

 

In the past 10 weeks, has this
changed? 1. Yes 2. No

In your family, were you
1. the oldest child
2. a middle child
3. the youngest child
4. the only child

Number of siblings
l. 0

. l
. 2
3

4

U‘ktflN

. or more

Here your siblings
1. all female
2. all male

3. both females and males

4. I was the only child

What is your race? Are you

1. White
2. Black
3. Asian
4. Other

Your current marital status
1. never married
2. currently married
3. separated

Month born in?
Your GPA
4. senior
. graduate student

5
6. special Student

Career Goal

 

In the past IO weeks, has this
changed? 1. Yes 2. No

4. divorced
5. living with someone
6. widowed

117’

The religion in which you were raised

 

1. Protestant 4. Muslim

2. Catholic 5. Atheist

3. Jewish 6. Other
Participation in religious activities as a child

1.
2.
3.

attended regularly
attended sporadically
hardly ever attended religious school or services

Where do you live now?

1.
2.
3.

In what
1.
2.
3.
4.

Current
1.
2.
3.
4.

 

on campus 4. in Okemos or Haslett
in East Lansing 5. in Mason, Holt, or Grand Ledge
in Lansing 6. other
type of home?
in a dorm
in a rented apartment
in a rented home
in a home I own
living arrangement
live alone 5. live with my spouse/lover
live with another woman/women 6. live with my children
live with a man/men as friends 7. live with my parents

live with both women and men

Would you describe the place where you did most of your growing up as

1. a rural area

2. a suburb

3. a small city or township (such as Okemos)

4. a medium sized city (such as Lansing)

5. a large city (such as Detroit)
when in high school, how much did you worry about assault? (By assault we mean
when someone attacks or threatens to attack a person.)

1. a great deal

. some

3. little

4. not much at all
In high school, how safe did you think it was to walk around your
neighborhood?

1. not safe at all

. not very safe

3. somewhat safe

4. very safe
In high school, was the outside door to your house or apartment

1. usually locked all the time

2. usually locked only part of the time

3. usually not locked

1118

There are many different Opinions about how to prevent rape or sexual assault
from happening. We'd like to know what you think of these ideas. Read each
one then circle the number that corresponds to how much you think it would
help to prevent rape. Would it help a great deal (circle 3), help somewhat
(circle 2), or not help much at all (circle 1). Give us your Opinion for each
of these ideas.
Help a Help Not Help
Great Deal Somewhat Much at All

 

A. Stronger security measures at
home, like better locks or alarms. 3 2 1

8. Women not going out alone,
especially at night. 3 2 1

C. Women dressing more modestly,
or in a less sexy way. 3 2 1

0. Providing psychological treatment
for rapists. 3 2 1

E. Women learning to fight back
against their attackers. 3 2 1

F. Women carrying weapons for pro-
tection, like knives or guns. 3 2 1

G. Newspapers publicizing names and
pictures of known rapists. 3 2 1

H. Stepping the push for women's rights
and women's liberation. 3 2 1

I. Changing girls' and women's role in
society—-to be less passive, polite
and dependent upon others. 3 2 1

J. Lowering society's tolerance of
rape and violence against women. 3 2 1

K. Changing boys' and men's roles in
society--to be more respectful toward
women. 3 2 1

From all of these ideas above, put the letter for the one that you feel would
work 3333 to prevent rape: and the one that would work second best:

2119

Now we'd like to know how physically strong you think you are. Circle the one
number on the scale from 1 to 7 that best describes how you see yourself. '75?
example, if in the first question you see yourself as very much stronger or
very much weaker, you would circle 1 or 7, depending on which extreme. Or, if
you see yourself as slightly stronger or slightly weaker, choose 3 or 5. The
middle choice, 4, means you see yourself as equally as strong, and so forth.
Try to answer every question.

Do you see yourself as stronger, equally as strong, or weaker than the average
woman?

1 2 3 4 S 6 7
stronger equally as strong weaker

And compared to the average 932, do you think you are

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
stronger equally as strong weaker

What about speed? Would you say you can run faster than the average woman,
about as fast, or not as fast?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
faster about as fast not as fast

And compared to the average man, would you say you can run

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
faster about as fast not as fast

If you were sexually assaulted, in general, how likely do you think you would
be to fight back?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
very somewhat not likely
likely likely at all

In general, do you think you would be able to defend yourself effectively
against an attacker? (Pick just one.)

1. yes

2. no

Have you ever taken a self-defense or martial arts (like karate or judo) class
before?

1. yes, and it helped a great deal

2. yes, and it helped somewhat

3. yes, but it didn't help much at all

4. yes, but it hurt more than helped

5. no, I never took such a course

If YES, briefly describe the course:

What type?

Length of course?
Teacher's training?
Teacher's sex?

 

 

 

 

1120

Some people report that they do certain things, or act in certain ways, in
order to increase their safety. Below is a list of such activities. We'd
like to know how often you do any of these things. For each activity, circle
the number that corresponds to how often you do it. Circle 1 if you do that
thing all or most of the time, circle 2 if you do it fairly often, circle 3 if
you seldom do it, and circle 4 if you never do it.

 

 

Something I Do:
All or Most Fairly
of the time Often Seldom Never

 

FIRST, THINK ABOUT WHEN YOU ARE AT HOME:
A. Lock the outside doors when home alone
during the day? 1 2 3 4

8. Lock the outside doors when home alone
during the night? 1 2 3 4

C. Ask salesmen or repairmen for identifica-
tion before opening the door? 1 2 3 4

NOW, WHEN YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR HOME:
0. When no one will be home for several hours,
deliberately leave on a light or a radio? 1 2 3 4

E. When at a movie or on a bus, choose a seat
with an eye to who will be sitting nearby? 1 2 3 4

F. When walking down the street, look people
you don't know right in the eye? 1 2 . 3 4

6. When going out, take a friend or two as
protection? 1 2 ‘ 3 4

H. When out at night, avoid using streets or
alleys that are not well-lit or well-

traveled? 1 2 3 4
I. When out alone, try not to dress in a

provocative or sexy manner? 1 2 3 4
J. In case of danger, try to wear shoes that

are easy to run in? 1 2 3 4
K. When out alone, take something along for

protection, like a dog or whistle or mace? 1 2 3 4
L. When out alone, take a gun for protection? 1 2 3 4

M. Restrict your going out to only
during the daytime? 1 2 3 4

N. Drive or take a taxi or a bus, rather than
walk, because of fear of being harmed? 1 2 3 4

121,

Something I Do:
All or Most ’FairTy
of the time Often Seldom Never

 

0. Avoid doing at night things you have to do
(such as shopping, laundry, or library) be-
cause of fear for your safety? 1 2 3 4

P. At night, not do things that you want to
do, but don't have to do (such as visit-
ing, sports, or evening classes) because
of fear for your safety? 1 2 3 4

Q. When walking on the street, make a point
of being alert and watchful? 1 2 3 4

R. When you see someone suspicious on the
street, cross the street? 1 2 3 4

5. When out alone at night, mentally
figure out escape routes or strategies
in case you are assaulted? 1 2 3 4

T. When out alone at night, wait or change
your route because you see a stranger
in your path? 1 2 3 4

U. When looking for parking places at
night, think about safety? 1 2 3 4

V. Decide not to go where you had planned
to if you cannot find a safe parking
space close to your destination? 1 2 3 4

W. Carry your keys in your hand when going
to the car, instead of waiting to get them
out after reaching the car? 1 2 3 4

x. When returning to your parked car, check
the back seat for intruders before getting
in? 1 2 3 4

The following questions discuss rapes or sexual assaults that either you or
friends have experienced. You don't have to answer a question if you find it
too painful or intrusive. However, the more questions you do answer, the more
we will learn about what women here think and feel and must cope with.

How often does rape or sexual assault worry you? Would you say
. more than once a week

. once a week

. monthly

. one or two times a year

. never

m-wat—t

1222

STRATEGIES
Here we want to learn what strategies you feel are most effective in stopping
sexual assault. The grid below describes different self-defense techniques
and different assaultive situations. For each square, rate how effective you
think a certain strategy would be in deterring a sexual assault in that
particular situation. Work across rows, from left to right. Use this scale
for your ratings:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
VERY UNCERTAIN VERY CERTAIN
that action that action
would work would work

Note: Do NOT worry about whether you can do that action. (We ask that
question on the next page.) Concentrate here ONLY on whether such an action
would stop an assault of the type described. Put down what you really
believe, not just what you've been told. Try to fill in every square.

SITUATIONS
Male Stranger Stranger
Acquaintance _(without weapon with knife

 

TECHNIQUES

Walk/appear confident

 

Make self look un-
attractive or sick

 

Be verbally confront-
ative/assertive

 

Plead, cry

 

Verbally stall

 

Run away

 

Scream loudly

 

Use mace

 

Break his hold on you/
block his blows

 

Punch and kick

 

Act immediately

 

Wait for the right
opportunity

 

 

 

 

 

1233

MASTERY
Here's a similar grid, but this time we want yo to do something different.
Rate how confident you are in your ability to perform each task successfully.
Again, worE across each row, from left to right. Use this scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
VERY UNCERTAIN VERY CERTAIN
that I can do it that I can do it

Remember, this time we want you to rate your sense of competence--do you think
you could successfully perform that technique in that situation? Don't worry
here whether you think that action is a good idea or not. Think only about
whether you would be able to do it if you chose to.

SITUATIONS
Male Stranger Stranger
Acquaintance (without weapon with knife

 

TECHNIQUES

Walk/appear confident

 

Make self look un-
attractive or sick

 

Be verbally confront-
ative/assertive

 

Plead, cry

 

Verbally stall

 

Run away

 

Scream loudly

 

Use mace

 

Break his hold on you/
block his blows

 

Punch and kick

 

Act immediately

 

Wait for the right
opportunity

 

 

 

 

 

121+

Now we would like to ask you some questions about your thoughts on crime on
campus, specifically sexual assault and rape. By sexual assault we mean when
someone attacks a person or threatens to do that person sexual harm. This
would include rape, by which we mean any type of forced sexual intercourse,
and any other form of sexual coercion. Fill in the blank or circle the answer
that best describes your behavior or feelings.

How important in your life is learning to fight against assailants?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not very important very important

How safe do you feel, or would you feel, being out alone on campus at night?
1. very safe
2. somewhat safe
3. somewhat unsafe
4. very unsafe

How about during the day. How safe do you feel, or would you feel, being out
alone on campus during the day?

1. very safe

2. somewhat safe

3. somewhat unsafe

4. very unsafe

 

Is there any area on campus where you would be afraid to walk alone at night?
1. yes
2. no

Is fear for your own safety something that you think about
1. all or most of the time
2. fairly often
3. seldom
4. never

How much do you worry about the possibility of being sexually assaulted on
campus at night?

1. a great deal

2. some

3. a little

4. not much at all

How much do you worry about the possibility of being sexually assaulted on
campus during the day?

1. a great deal

2. some

3. a little

4. not much at all

1215

How likely do you think it is that you will be a victim of sexual assault in
the next 12 months?

1. very likely

2. somewhat likely

3. not very likely

4. not likely at all

Now, think about the last time you went out alone after dark on campus. How
worried were you then a50ut Being sexually assaultedII
1. very worried
2. somewhat worried
3. a little worried
4. not much worried at all

How many sexual assaults and rapes would you say there are on campus?

1. a lot
2. some
3. a few

4. not many at all

Do you think that the number of sexual assaults and rapes on campus is
1. going up

2. going down

3. staying about the same

Estimate HOW MANY rapes or attempted rapes occurred on campus in the past 12
months.
Put your best guess here

What PERCENTAGE of women using the campus would you estimate were victims of
rape or attempted rape on campus during the past 12 months?
Put your best guess here %

What PERCENTAGE of women using this campus (students, staff, faculty) do you
estimate were victims of rape or attempted rape anywhere during the past 12
months?

Put your best guess here %

1126

The next questions are quite personal. You don't have to answer a question if
you find it too painful or too intrusive. However, the more questions you do
answer, the more we will learn about what women here think and feel and must
cope with.

How often did your parents hit you when you were growing up? (Circle your
answer on this scale.)

1 2 3 4 5
Always Sometimes Never

In your family when growing up, how often did your parents hit each other?

1 2 3 4 5
Always Sometimes Never

In your current or last love relationship, how often did/does your partner hit
you?

1 2 3 4 5
Always Sometimes Never

How often does rape or sexual assault worry you? Would you say
I. more than once a week
2. once a week

3. monthly
4. one or two times a year
5. never

We know that rape is a terrible cripe, for many regsons. What do you believe
is the ver, worst aspect of rape? Pick only one.
1. tEe possibility of being killed
2. the fear of being permanently maimed or injured
3. emotional damage to the victim
. the sexual violation
. the shame of being a rape victim
. the fear of men that results
. other (specify)

NOWb

 

What do you believe is the second worst aspect of rape?
(Again, pick only one.)
1. the possibility of being killed
2. the fear of being permanently maimed or injured
. emotional damage to the victim
. the sexual violation
the shame of being a rape victim
the fear of men that results
other (specify)

 

N05th
0

 

127’

Have you ever had anyone force sex on you, in any way, against your will?

1. yes
2. no
Have you ever been raped?
1. yes
2. no

Have you ever been sexully assaulted by a relative?
1. yes
2. no

Have you ever had anyone attempt to force sex on you, in any way, but
unsuccessfully?

1. yes

2. no

Have you ever had sex with someone only because you were afraid physical force
would be used against you if you did 323 go along?

1. yes

2. no

During dating, has anyone ever pushed you to go farther sexually than you
wanted to?
1. yes
2. no

We are also concerned about other things that happen to people that may or may
not be considered sexual assault. Has anything ever happened to you, besides
forced sex, that might be considered sexual assault. That is, anything from
being hugged or touched in a way that made you uncomfortable, having someone
expose themselves to you, or anything else?

1. yes

2. no

Have you ever known someone who was a victim of rape or attempted rape?
1. yes
2. no

How many rape or attempted rape victims, not counting yourself, have you
known?
Put number here

1253

Using the following scale, circle the number which best represents your
feelings about each of the following statements:

1 2 3 4
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

On the whole, I am satisfied with myself . . . . . .
I feel I have a number of good qualities . . . . . .
At times I think I'm no good at all. . . . . . . . .
I am able to do things as well as most other people.
I feel I do not have much to be proud of . . . . . .
I certainly feel useless at times. . . . . . . . . .
I take a positive attitude toward myself . . . . .
I wish I could have more respect for myself. . . .
All in all, I'm inclined to think I'm a failure. .
I feel I am a person of worth, at least on an equal

basis with others. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

O 0 O
o O o 0 e O O O O
o 0 o O o O o O o
. 0 Q 0 O O o O o
. o g 0 Q 0 o 0 O
O O O O O O I O O
HHHHHHHHI—P
N NNNNNNNNN
u wwwwwwwww
#bhéhbéhb

4

Below are a series of paired statements. For each pair, please circle the
number of the statement that comes closest to your position. Choose one
statement from each pair.

a. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions.
b. The world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the
little guy can do about it.

a. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work.
b. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to
be a matter of good and bad fortune anyway.

a. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck.
b. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin.

a. As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces
we can neither understand nor control.

b. By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people can
control world events.

a. With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.
b. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians
do in office.

a. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen
to me.

b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important
role in my life.

a. What happens to me is my own doing.
b. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my
life is taking.

a. Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the way they do.

b. In the long run the people are responsible for bad government on a national
as well as on a local level.

2129

Put your code number again on this page

 

Finally, you're at the end. Look at this list of personality characteristics.
We would like you to use these characteristics to describe ourself, that is,
we would like you to indicate, on a scale from 1 to 7, how true of you each of
these characteristics is. Just write the number next to the characteristic.
Please do not leave any unmarked.

Nevér or Usuglly SomeEimes Occasionally OfEen Usuglly Alwgys or

almost not but infre- true true true almost

never true true quently true always true
Defend my own beliefs .____ Eager to soothe hurt feelings
Affectionate _____ Secretive _____
Conscientious _____ Willing to take risks _____
Independent _____ Warm _____
Sympathetic _____ Dominant _____
Moody _____ Adaptable _____
Assertive __ Tender _
Sensitive to needs of others ____ Conceited _____
Reliable _____ Willing to take a stand _____
Strong personality _____ Love Children _____
Understanding .____ Tactful _____
Jealous _____ Aggressive _____
Forceful _____ Gentle _____
Compassionate .____ Conventional _____
Truthful _____ Have leadership abilities _____

Joyful _____
Free __

Thank you. Angry

Trusting

APPENDIX F

TABLES OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS

OF RESEARCH VARIABLES

130

Table F-l

Precautionary Behavior Means and Standard Deviations

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time
Pre Post F-up

Group a 92 e 99 14. 92

Vigilant Behaviors
Defensea 3.12 .45 3.26 .45 3.31 .42
Motivationb 3.12 .43 3.04 .46 3.06 .50
FitnessC 3.05 .40 3.04 .43 2.96 .42

Avoidant Behaviors
Defensed 2.04 .64 1.93 .63 1.90 .52
Motivatione 2.25 .55 2.03 .56 1.94 .60
Fitnessf 2.14 .58 2.05 .58 2.07 .62

 

Note. 3's change due to missing date.

ég = 43.
Pg = 31.
CPre g_= 25; Post and F-up 2_= 26.
dPre g = 43; Post and F—up g = 44.
ég = 31.
fPre gp= 24; Post and F-up gy= 26.

131

Table F—2
Perception of Physical Competence Means

and Standard Deviations

 

 

 

 

Time
Pre Post F-up
Group .4 92 a 2 14. 99
Defensea 3.31 .90 3.88 .76 3.89 .76
Motivationb 3.41 .91 3.52 .99 3.57 1.01
Fitnessc 3.08 .83 3.11 .71 3.24 .91

 

aPre g = 43; Post and F-up 2
pg = 31.
CPre and F-up g = 26; Post §_= 25.

44.

132

Table F-3

Fear of Sexual Assault Means and Standard Deviations

 

 

 

 

Time
Pre Post F-up
Group .4 .92 r 9.2 u an.
Defensea 2.40 .48 2.18 .46 2.16 .47
Motivationb 2.38 .48 2.30 .45 2.08 .52
Fitness0 2.27 .42 2.25 .40 2.04 .46

 

g = 42.
#3 = 30.
CE = 26.

133

Table F-4

Outcome Expectancies Means and Standard Deviations

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time
Pre Post F-up

Group 14. 59 a 9.9 e 92

Assertive Strategies
Defensea 4.59 .94 5.70 .71 5.38 .81
Motivationb 4.58 .83 4.96 .79 4.83 1.03
Fitnessc 4.20 .85 4.30 .84 4.41 1.05

Dependent Strategies
Defensed 3.07 .90 2.77 .82 2.74 .80
Motivatione 3.24 .95 3.71 1.14 3.68 1.19
Fitnessf 3.12 1.10 3.41 1.00 3.57 .99
ég = 44.
#2 = 31.
CPre g = 23; Post and F-up E = 26.
42 = 44.
e2 = 31.
£3 = 26.

134

Table F-S

Efficacy Expectancies Means and Standard Deviations

 

 

 

 

 

Time
Pre Post F-up

Group .4 9.9 r G_D a 99.

Assertive Behaviors
Defensea 4.90 .82 5.94 .65 5.59 .70
Motivationb 5.26 .74 5.33 .76 5.32 .79
Fitnessc 4.60 .82 4.86 .85 4.91 1.02

Dependent Behaviors
Defensed 4.58 .98 4.69 1.60 4.44 1.31
Motivatione 5.22 .81 5.17 1.07 5.27 .99
Fitnessf 4.93 .92 4.89 1.09 5.10 1.06

 

aPre and Post 2 = 44; F-up g = 43.
#2 = 31.

Ta = 26.

dPre g.= 44. Post and F-up g = 43.
ég = 31.

f

g = 26.

Self-Esteem

135

Table F-6

Means and Standard Deviations

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time
Pre F-up

. Group .4 9.12 .4 92
Defensea 3.12 .35 3.22 .44
Motivationb 3.17 .42 3.20 .42
Fitnessc 3.25 .41 3.29 .31
33 a 43.
§g = 31.
cPre g = 25; F-up 2 =24

Table F-7

136

Sex Role Identity Means and Standard Deviation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time
Pre F-up

Group 4 a 4 .82

BSRI Masculine Traits
Defensea 4.86 .69 5.09 .66
Motivationb 5.03 .88 5.18 .81
Fitnessc 4.67 .79 4.65 .70

BSRI Feminine Traits
Defensed 5.55 .79 5.59 .87
Motivatione 5.71 .62 5.84 .49
Fitnessf 5.91 .64 5.83 .69
#2 = 44.
92 = 30.
92 = 26.
dg = 44.
IQ = 30.
f2 = 26.

 

"I11111111111141.1711Ts