Who Is Considered a Potential Victim, Perpetrator, or Bystander? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Research Evaluating Gender-Specific Campus Sexual Assault Prevention Programs Implemented in the United States

Heather Hensman Kettrey,Martie P Thompson,Robert A Marx,Alyssa J Davis
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241271412
2024-09-10
Abstract:Campus sexual assault is a problem that overwhelmingly affects cisgender women and transgender, genderqueer/questioning, and nonbinary (TGQN) students. Yet, students of any gender may be perpetrators or victims of assault. Thus, it is important that prevention programs incorporate a range of scenarios that depict different genders as both perpetrators and victims, while also acknowledging the differential risk between gender groups. Gender-specific programming is one way of achieving this goal. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we synthesized studies evaluating campus sexual assault prevention programs implemented with specified gender groups in the United States. Through a comprehensive literature search, we identified 38 studies that met eligibility criteria and were disseminated through 2021 (N = 22 women's studies; N = 16 men's studies; N = 0 TGQN studies). Programs overwhelmingly portrayed women as victims and men as perpetrators or bystanders while largely ignoring experiences of TGQN students. A greater proportion of women's programs included risk reduction content that relayed tactics participants may use to avoid victimization. A greater proportion of men's programs included bystander content that emphasized ways participants may stop others from committing sexual assault. Women's programs had a small but significant and favorable effect on victimization, but studies evaluating these programs did not measure perpetration outcomes. Men's programs had a non-significant effect on perpetration but victimization outcomes were not measured. Gender-specific prevention programming should begin to reflect the differential risks of perpetration and victimization across gender identities, and the effects of this program content should be rigorously evaluated.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?