Men and Masculinities

15(5) 507-525
ª The Author(s) 2012
‘‘It’s Cool to Care Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
about Sexual DOI: 10.1177/1097184X12458590
http://jmm.sagepub.com

Violence’’: Men’s
Experiences with
Sexual Assault
Prevention

Jacqueline R. Piccigallo1, Terry G. Lilley2, and

Susan L. Miller3

Abstract
We explore the paths related to college men’s involvement in all-male antirape
prevention groups using in-depth interviews conducted with twenty-five male
college students who are active members of such groups from eleven campuses
located on the East Coast of the United States. Major themes deriving from analysis
of the interviews were all related to the engagement of the participants with the
programs on four different levels. These themes, which are developmentally related,
are (1) a disclosure which makes sexual assault a personal issue at the same time that
it reveals a lack of knowledge and skills on the part of the respondents, (2) the eva-
luation of the approach of individual programs, (3) the evaluation of the relative effec-
tiveness of the approacher, and (4) the creation of a social context which the
engagement facilitates. Overall, we find that when the men in our study were
approached in a nonconfrontational, alliance-building fashion by other men, they

1
Department of Justice, Washington, DC, USA
2
Department of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse,
WI, USA
3
Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

Corresponding Author:
Terry G. Lilley, Department of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University of Wisconsin-La
Crosse, 4304 Centennial Hall, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA
Email: tlilley@uwlax.edu
508 Men and Masculinities 15(5)

reported that their knowledge related to sexual assault, their empathy toward
sexual assault survivors, and their motivation to actively engage in the prevention
of sexual violence all increased. Thus, we see evidence of a pathway to behavioral
change represented by the recruitment and participation of men to these programs.

Keywords
peer influence, activism, violence, hegemonic masculinity, patriarchy

Sexual assault has long been defined as a woman’s problem. As a result, many sex-
ual assault prevention efforts have been directed at women and risk reduction, such
as increasing women’s safety outdoors with blue light alert systems or addressing
their vulnerability through offering self-defense classes. A 1990 survey of twenty-
six universities revealed that, of the twenty-one institutions with sexual assault pre-
vention programs, only two included programs aimed at changing male behavior
(Parrot 1990; see also Schewe and O’Donohue 1993). While the number of univer-
sities incorporating programs aimed at men has increased in recent years, they con-
tinue to represent a small minority of the total number of programs aimed at sexual
assault prevention (Choate 2003; Fabiano et al. 2003; Gold and Villari 2000) and
many are coeducational (see Anderson and Whitson 2005 for a review) despite the
fact that goals for men’s and women’s sexual assault related programming are not
necessarily the same (Gidycz, Orchowski, and Berkowitz 2011; Gidycz, Rich, and
Marioni 2002).
This dearth of specifically male-directed programs continues to exist despite the
fact that research has demonstrated such interventions to be successful at changing
attitudes of male participants regarding acceptance of rape myths and interpersonal
violence as well as increasing empathy toward victims (Anderson and Whitson
2005; Brown & Messman-Moore 2010; Foubert 2005; Foubert and Perry 2007;
Johannson-Love and Geer 2003; O’Donohue, Elizabeth, and Fanetti 2003; Paul and
Gray 2011; Schewe 2002; Stein 2007; Vladutiu, Martin, and Macy 2011). These
changes are not a matter of reinforcing preexisting beliefs, however, as such programs
have shown greater efficacy at changing attitudinal responses of high-risk participants
relative to their low-risk counterparts (O’Donohue, Elizabeth, and Fanetti 2003).
Aside from the attitudinal change fostered by male-directed intervention efforts, beha-
vioral changes are also seen in a limited number of studies. For instance, five months
after participating in such a program, male participants identified specific behavioral
changes as a result of their participation. Such changes included no longer telling jokes
related to rape, confronting the sexist behavior and language of peers, and increased
support of a friend who had been assaulted (Foubert, Newberry, and Tatum 2008; Fou-
bert and Perry 2007).
The present study extends our knowledge of these programs and their
effectiveness in two ways. First, by taking a qualitative approach, we are able to
Piccigallo et al. 509

gather more detailed information on what exactly participants find effective about
such programs than was previously offered. Second, this study offers new informa-
tion on how such programs affect not just attitudinal change, but provide pathways to
behavioral change, specifically in the form of their involvement in moving from
program participation to program delivery.

Data Sample and Methods

We explore the paths related to college men’s involvement in all-male antirape
prevention groups using responses from in-depth interviews conducted with
twenty-five male college students who are active members of such groups from
eleven campuses located on the East Coast of the United States (Piccigallo 2008). The
rape prevention groups were organized, official campus groups whose memberships
are primarily or exclusively male. Respondents had to be at least eighteen years of age
and were located either through the group or institution’s website or by contacting a
representative at the Women’s Studies department of the school and requesting the
contact information for the group’s president. In order to be considered an active
member, the men had to attend group meetings and to participate in group functions
as opposed to simply being listed as a member of the group. Four respondents were
men of color and twenty-one of the men identified as white. Most of the respondents
were either seniors or juniors in college (nine men in each category) followed by three
sophomores, two freshmen, one graduate student, and one recently graduated senior,
with the age range from eighteen to twenty-seven (the graduate student was
twenty-seven; the average age was twenty). About half attended a private college or
university, while the other half attended a public institution.
Interviews were semistructured and respondents were asked questions about
specific topics and were given the opportunity to raise additional issues and offer their
own input on issues they deem salient; since many questions were open-ended, parti-
cipants provided more detailed and richer responses without feeling constrained to a
predetermined set of answers or testing hypotheses (Bachman and Schutt 2007). The
majority of the men preferred to be interviewed over the phone, although several
interviews were conducted face to face, and five were interviewed online.
A grounded theory approach was used to analyze the interview data. Grounded
theory methods are ideal in order to facilitate the exploration of a substantive area
about which little research has been conducted and hypothesis testing is not needed
(Straus and Corbin 1998). Grounded theory allows using both inductive and deduc-
tive methods (Patton 2002) and previous studies on male-directed rape prevention
programs provide a source of possible categories for data analysis while simultane-
ously facilitating the emergence of additional themes and new categories. Open
coding was used to identify parts of the transcripts that lead to an understanding
of categories and their meanings. To qualify as a theme, at least five of the men had
to include a particular concept in their responses although, as with most of the
themes that emerged, an overwhelming majority of respondents raised and discussed
510 Men and Masculinities 15(5)

the issue. The major themes that we identified through analysis of the interviews
were all related to the engagement of the participants with the program on four
different levels. These themes, which are developmentally related, are (1) a disclo-
sure which makes sexual assault a personal issue at the same time that it reveals a
lack of knowledge and skills on the part of the respondents, (2) the evaluation of the
approach of individual programs, (3) the evaluation of the relative effectiveness of
the approacher, and (4) the creation of a social context which the engagement
facilitates.

Results
‘‘My Jaw Dropped:’’ Making Sexual Assault a Personal Issue
The men in this study identified one of the primary motivations for their participa-
tion in these groups was a personal issue, such as knowing someone who had been
assaulted. This motivation falls in line with Casey and Smith’s (2010) finding that
men’s exposure to a sensitizing experience is one of the initial pathways to men’s
involvement in antiviolence against women work. It helps create the empathy that
prior research has shown as necessary to affect attitudinal and behavioral change
in regard to sexual assault and provides the personal link that creates the sense of
being a stakeholder for many men. Indeed, for over three-quarters of the men in our
sample, personal issues were a motivating factor for becoming involved in the
antirape organization. Seven of the men explained that hearing personal stories from
female victims helped influence factor their decision to join an antirape group. An
additional ten men personally knew someone who had been sexually assaulted, and
three mentioned their concern for women in their lives. Harold, a senior, illustrated
the power of this motivation,

Back when I was in high school, I dated this girl for about a year and a half and after we
broke up . . . the year before I came to college . . . she had contacted me . . . and she told
me that she had been raped over the summer . . . I really didn’t know what to do or how
to handle the situation because this was like the first time that I had ever come in con-
tact with it and I’ve never really like even learned about sexual assault or like what it
was or anything like that. So through that event . . . I knew I wanted to do something to
help this issue and educate people and stuff like that, just help prevent these kinds of
occurrences. And so that’s the event that kind of led up to me joining the group.

Lonnie, another senior, recounted a similar experience,

Spring of my sophomore year I began dating a woman who was a senior at [my school]
at the time. She had been the victim of sexual assault the winter of that year . . . over
the course of our relationship she pretty quickly began to tell me first that it had hap-
pened, and then some more details about the incident, her recovery process, how she
Piccigallo et al. 511

thought about her attacker, and other things, giving me a lot of insight into the effects of
sexual violence that I otherwise wouldn’t have.

Henry, also a senior, discussed his reaction to a close friend’s disclosure of

victimization,

My jaw dropped. I was crushed beyond words; I didn’t think this happened in small
towns, especially not to people I knew. Rape happened on ‘‘Law and Order,’’ not in
my high school.

In each case, these three men not only pointed to their personal connection to
someone who had been assaulted as a motivation to action, they also recounted their
general ignorance of the issue prior to these disclosures and a lack of skills related to
handling such disclosures when they do occur. These stories illustrate what is a com-
mon situation for many men: prior to being confronted by someone who had been
victimized, they had never given the issue of sexual violence much thought. Indeed,
with the exception of three men, who all coincidentally attended the same school that
had institutionalized a freshman orientation focused on sexual assault, all of the men
in our study spoke about the lack of awareness of the issue among men in general
that leaves them unequipped to deal with the issue when confronted with it. The fact
that only three of our participants had been part of any formalized discussion related
to sexual assault prior to a personal disclosure is telling and reinforces the idea that
sexual violence is, fundamentally, a woman’s problem.
Without question, we feel that engaging men in the conversation is a necessary
and important step. Yet, as far as policy and programmatic implications are con-
cerned, it is neither possible nor preferable to rely on this personal link in order
to engage men and foster empathy on their part. A primary reason for this is that such
reliance still leaves men unequipped to effectively and supportively respond to dis-
closures when they do occur. Moreover, without this skill set in place, one could
argue that the potential for such disclosures to occur would be lessened for fear,
on the part of the female victim, of how the man might react. This is why many
programs attempt to build empathy by centering on, or including, the stories of vic-
tims. This approach accounts for engaging men and can be effective (seven of the
men said that hearing stories about women’s victimization on campus, whether they
were friends, classmates, or strangers helped motivate them to join), yet they are not
necessarily ideal. Effectively, this approach places the onus for increasing men’s
knowledge and empathy related to sexual assault on those who have been
victimized. Obviously, there are those who are more than willing to share their
personal stories and are quite effective and transformational educators. Still, this
approach represents only one strategy used to engage men in the discussion toward
preventing sexual violence. Aside from sexual assault becoming a personal issue via
disclosure, our research uncovered three additional themes related to men’s involve-
ment in these types of programs that represent the major contributions of this article.
512 Men and Masculinities 15(5)

These themes are the approach of the program, who is doing the approaching, and
the social context that the program fosters.

‘‘We Don’t Blame You:’’ The Importance of the Approach

Sexual assault prevention programs that show greatest effectiveness at generating
attitudinal and behavioral changes approach men as potential allies, not as potential
rapists. Whether or not men have ever committed a sexually coercive act, the fact
remains most men do not view themselves as potential rapists and are prone to
rejecting educational interventions that focus on men as potential perpetrators.
Conversely, men respond more positively when approached as potential helpers
(Scheel et al. 2001). Not only does such an approach preempt any potential defen-
siveness to the topic on the part of participants, it also renders men stakeholders
in what has traditionally seemed to them a topic that only affects women. For
instance, one respondent, Geoff, indicated that not seeing oneself as stakeholder is
a primary obstacle to changing men’s attitudes and/or behaviors:

I think a big thing is that people see it [sexual assault] as a women’s issue and I think a
lot of men are like, you know, ‘‘I’m not the one being raped; I don’t need to know
exactly what acquaintance rape is.’’ I think that’s . . . probably the big problem with
just not having an awareness of what it is.

One successful way that men are rendered stakeholders in these programs is by focusing
on male-on-male rapes as opposed to male-on-female. Research has shown that casting
the male in the role of victim leads to significant increases in empathy as well as declines
in rape myth acceptance and men’s likelihood of raping women (Foubert 2000; Foubert
and Marriott 1997; Foubert and McEwen 1998; Gilbert, Heesacker, and Gannon 1991;
Schewe and O’Donohue 1993). Some (Davis 1999; Lee 2010; Scarce 1999) have
expressed concerns over utilizing this approach and its potential to use homophobia
as a foundation for empathy. In light of these concerns, Berkowitz (2002) has suggested
that programs can enhance victim empathy by including both male and female victim
perspectives. Still, the men in our study gave us insight as to why this particular
approach might be effective in, at least, initially engaging men in the discussion:

. . . it’s the idea that learning about a male being raped gives guys, for the first time
often, the ability to put themselves in the shoes of being a rape survivor. And so that
really helps us to have a pretty meaningful discussion about what it might feel like
to be raped, what you can do to help, things like that, and building empathy within
guys . . . Once guys talk and the video is over, we often try to translate it into the terms
of what it means for a female survivor (Ralphy).

In this sense, then, the video is used toward engaging men in a discussion that
they have traditionally felt had nothing to do with them and to give them an
Piccigallo et al. 513

opportunity to empathize with a victim of a crime with which they have a limited
understanding.
Another respondent, Trevor, discussed how the development of this empathy can
then translate into behavior;

Instead of treating men as potential rapists (like a lot of programs do) we’ve decided to
take an approach of education based on empathy—help the men understand what it
might feel like to be raped, help them realize that it can happen to anyone, including
those they love, and you can really start affecting the way they go about their own per-
sonal prevention efforts.

Other men expressed the importance of this nonconfrontational, alliance-building

approach but also indicated that something more may be involved. Drew remarked that,

. . . it’s good for us as guys to deliver the message because . . . it’s not like just a
woman’s issue. Everyone should care about it and we’re uniquely in a position to say,
we know that you guys have sat through programs before where they get up in front of
you and they basically chastise you for being part of the problem when we don’t think
that you raped anyone, we don’t blame you for rape. We want you to understand what
you can do to help your friend if she is assaulted. So I think that that’s really effective
for us because it is a peer group and . . . we can get the guys to sort of step outside what
they might think about rape and reconsider it.

This represents the other component of the approach that makes such prevention efforts
effective: the fact that these male-directed programs are delivered by other men.

‘‘When Men Talk, It’s ‘Us’, It’s ‘We,’’’: The Importance of the Approacher
When we asked our respondents what they believed was ‘‘the best way to get male
students involved in the prevention of acquaintance rape,’’ most of the men in our
study emphasized how ‘‘having men talk to other men’’ was one of the key and most
effective components of the groups. We also asked them if it made a difference if the
information was given by females or males. They all gave several reasons why men
would be more receptive to hearing these messages from other men as opposed to
women. While Harold contended that men are just ‘‘more comfortable being open
with each other when it’s just guys,’’ Ralphy attributed at least part of the difference
to the novelty of the message/messenger combination:

I think it’s an unexpected situation because you’re so used to hearing different

messages from your male friends that hearing guys say that it’s cool to care about
sexual violence and it’s cool to stand up against it, it’s in some ways so novel and
so bizarre for these guys that it’s something that they listen to and that they remember
because it is different.
514 Men and Masculinities 15(5)

Clark and Marc both talked about the more typical message/messenger combination
and how that is typically received:

I think when women talk about sexual assault to men, men get on the defense . . . just go
straight to the defense . . . when women, men like to stereotype, but usually when
women talk about this, it’s ‘‘you men, you men’’ . . . and . . . when you use the word
‘‘you’’ you’re automatically on the defense . . . when men talk, it’s ‘‘us,’’ it’s ‘‘we,’’ you
know, you’re involving yourself so it’s easier to talk about it . . . men to men. (Clark)
I believe it’s more effective if they’re [men] actually being told by other males
because . . . the typical male who’s not terribly aware of the issue may see a female
as coming off as lecturing them or complaining or something, or assuming that they
are a perpetrator, and that may turn a person off when it comes to getting them to listen
and try to persuade them. (Marc)

Other respondents point to this tendency to pay greater attention to men as a

reflection of male privilege:

. . . just from . . . some latent or inherent sexism, I feel that men would probably
respond better if they’re hearing this from another male, which is why I thought [it] was
such a good group . . . I wanted to, you know, be able to get men talking with other men
about issues of rape and domestic violence. (Geoff)
I think the presentation has to be given by males because I’ve seen presentations
presented by women and I know that I respect women, but at the same time, it doesn’t
come across in the same way because guys just respect guys more, just the way the
world is set up, men have a lot of advantages over women. So if a man is telling other
men that this is a problem, the guys will listen. I wish it wasn’t set up like that, but I
realize we have to use this strategy. (Sal)

While all of the above quotations are couched in terms of why the ‘‘typical male’’
would react more favorably to a male presenter, it is interesting to note that the men
in this program also seem to be affected by the norms and evaluations of their male
peers to a greater degree than they are by those of females. For example, when asked
about their friends’ reactions to their participation in a male-led rape prevention
group, more than half of the men described only the feedback they had received from
male friends. This may be due to the fact that, among those who specifically
described reactions by female friends, such reactions tended to be mainly positive
while the reactions of male friends tended to be mixed, ranging from supportive,
indifferent, and questioning of their motivations, to dismissive and insulting. Still,
it is interesting that the majority of the men tended to focus solely on the feedback
of their male friends.
One potential explanation for these findings is the peer relationship of the men in
the group. While Anderson and Whitson’s (2005) meta-analysis of sexual assault
prevention programs found that those led by professionals were more effective at
positively changing rape-related attitudes and behavioral intentions, other research
Piccigallo et al. 515

not included in this meta-analysis (Audrey, Holliday, and Campbell 2006; Clements
and Buczkiewicz 1993; DiClemente 1993; Finn 1981; Jarvis 1993; Milburn 1995;
Perry 1989; Sloane and Zimmer 1993; Woodcock, Stenner, and Ingham 1992) shows
peer-led programs to be more successful.
This discrepancy in the research may be a result of two things. First, what is
being measured. Research has shown that while nonpeer/adult educators are
more effective than peer educators at transferring information (Mellanby et al.
2001), peer educators are more effective at transferring norms, values, and atti-
tudes (Audrey, Holliday, and Campbell 2006; Mellanby et al. 2001; Milburn
1995; Sloane and Zimmer 1993). Along with the family, peer-friendship groups
are the most important of ‘‘those groups which control individuals’ major
sources of reinforcement and punishment and expose them to behavioral models
and normative definitions’’ (Akers et al. 1979, 638). Moreover, not only does
peer education positively affect the audience, research has also indicated that
peer education has a self-reinforcing effect on the educators in that they tend
to absorb and commit to the messages that they deliver in the prevention
programs (Kelly et al.1991; National Hemophilia Foundation 1994; O’Hara
et al. 1996; Rickert, Jay, and Gottlieb 1991; Slap et al. 1991). These peer effects
have been seen in programs on topics including smoking prevention, alcohol and
drug use prevention, as well as forms of sexual education, including the encour-
agement of condom use (Audrey, Holliday, and Campbell 2006; Clements and
Buczkiewicz 1993; DiClemente 1993; Jarvis 1993; Perry 1989; Woodcock,
Stenner, and Ingham 1992).
Second, if we extend our operationalization of peer networks to include not
only status but also gender in this sense, we can find another potential explana-
tion for the discrepancy in the research listed above. Kimmel (2010) has dis-
cussed the homosocial nature of men’s relationships and its impact on the
construction of a heterosexist and sexist masculinity (see also Schwartz and
DeKeseredy 1997). At the same time, however, we must also see the homosocial
nature of men’s relationships as an entry way, or starting point, for reconstruct-
ing masculinity toward nonviolence. In other words, if male peer support serves
to encourage and promote violence against women, then male peers who con-
front and openly oppose sexist attitudes and behavior may help discourage and
possibly prevent such violence (DeKeseredy and Schwartz 2002; Schwartz and
DeKeseredy 1997). Indeed, recent research has found that perceived peer
attitudes toward sexual assault were a significant predictor of willingness to
intervene (Brown & Messman-Moore 2010). Thus, the personal issue or the
increased empathy may provide the desire to ‘‘do something’’ but it is the non-
confrontational, ally-building approach by other men that provides a structured
outlet for this desire. Moreover, this peer effect is also reflective of what may be
seen as the most powerful contribution of this study; the extension of the peer
influence into the creation of a new social context that gives men cultural per-
mission to ‘‘do something’’ about sexual assault.
516 Men and Masculinities 15(5)

‘‘A . . . Thing that Men Rarely Get to Do:’’ The Creation of a New Social
Context
Many of the men in our study discussed how the homosocial characteristic of the
programs was part of their appeal. This finding is supported by narrative analysis
(Vladutiu, Martin, and Macy 2011) that has shown single-sexed programs affect-
ing greater behavioral change in participants than those programs directed at
mixed-sex audiences. Likewise, some meta-analysis has shown single-sexed
programs also result in greater attitudinal change than their mixed-sex counter-
parts (Brecklin and Forde 2001). The meta-analysis conducted by Anderson and
Whitson (2005), however, finds the evidence for same sexed programs to be more
complicated. While the authors found larger effect sizes for males in mixed-sex
programs, they were unable to find any statistically significant difference between
outcomes for males in single-sexed versus mixed-sex programs. As for females,
the authors found that both mixed- and single-sexed programs resulted positive
attitudinal change, though the effect size for the latter was not statistically signif-
icant and was based on only three studies. In terms of behavioral intentions,
however, Anderson and Whitson (2005) found tentative evidence (based on only
four studies) that single-sexed programs were effective in producing positive
change whereas mixed-group settings were not. The evidence gathered in this
study extends our understanding of the debate in that it operationalizes the peer
effect as one involving both gender and status.
Many of the men described the all-male aspect as the main reason they joined the
group and 84 percent of the men stated their feeling that, to get male students
involved, it would be more effective if the messenger were male as opposed to
female. While most research to date has focused on attitudinal change or the projec-
tion of, and plans for, future behavioral change; here we have evidence of behavioral
change in the recruitment and participation of men to these programs. Thus, it
becomes intervention on a larger scale that not only affects one’s immediate peer
group but also acquaintances and program participants.
In a comment that was echoed by the majority of our respondents, Ralphy dis-
cussed his motivation to join,

. . . the major reason that I got involved when I decided to . . . was because the guys I
knew that asked me to get involved were guys I looked up to, who I trusted a lot, and
who I had a lot in common with, and who I also thought had similar values and abilities,
so that was a huge factor.

Sammy reinforced this sentiment by explaining the power of the peer effect in
recruiting members,

It’s always hard to get guys involved [in sexual assault prevention]. A lot of guys don’t
want to touch the issue. I think really you just have to find the guys who are willing and
Piccigallo et al. 517

eventually they start pulling more and more guys in and making other guys feel
comfortable getting guys involved in it.

While groups relied heavily on nomination of new members by current members

(as P. J. stated, It’s difficult to judge a man’s character by a résumé), and over half of
the men responding knew members of the group prior to joining, the peer effect was
also present among men who knew each other only as acquaintances or classmates.
For example, Ari noted that he saw in particular members ‘‘examples of . . . [what]
I wanted to be on campus: student leaders, outspoken for a good cause, etc.’’ In this
way, peer exposure affects not only the attitudes of program participants but the
recruitment of peers to the program functions as a self-replicating and perpetual
peer-based intervention proven to affect both attitudinal and behavioral change.
At schools where the group was well established, active, and strong, the
self-replicating mechanism of peer recruitment tended to be the strongest and the
status and prestige of the group and its members increased exponentially. That is,
as the reputation of the group grew, recruitment of influential peers became easier
which, in turn, helped further grow the group’s reputation. Ralphy discussed this
process in recounting the role the positive reputation of the group had on his decision
to join and recruit his friends:

It was a pretty well-known group on campus and a group that a lot of, I guess you could
say ‘‘higher-profile students’’ were involved in, which was lucky because it meant that,
in some ways, it was cool to be a part of ‘‘One in Four’’ at my undergrad and so I was
never embarrassed or quiet about it.

Trevor made similar remarks:

I mean, these guys were really cool. They were the kinds of guys you really looked up
to and wanted to be like . . . .A lot of our members were really guys’ guys and well-
liked throughout the University community. Not only did that contribute to our well-
attended meetings, but I also feel like it made us very effective in our message to other
men. Since we were ‘‘normal guys’’ it was easy for them to relate to us and our experi-
ences and they seemed very willing to open up and listen.

Oscar, a junior, also echoed the importance of the influential status of a peer
recruiter and educator,

. . . the main person who I knew in the group was someone who a lot of people
respected . . . He was a good athlete, but also someone who people really respected for other
reasons. He cared a lot and what not . . . having him as a role model I think played a big part.

Together, these comments indicate the importance of the charismatic leader (Weber
1948) in the recruitment of young men to the program. As Casey and Smith (2010,
969) remark, the ‘‘project of engaging men and encouraging them to view
518 Men and Masculinities 15(5)

themselves as allies is therefore perhaps best done individually through existing

social networks and by admired peers.’’ If college men can be influenced by a
presentation delivered by other men, it is no surprise that this influence might grow
and encourage participation when the messenger is a high-status male, an insight
consistent with the literature on peer to peer education and opinion leaders (Audrey,
Holliday, and Campbell 2006).
Research also indicates that the continued involvement of peer educators with the
men they are trying to reach is key to changing norms and behaviors (Stein 2007).
Instead of being limited to a one-time presentation, this charismatic peer effect of the
programs shifted, by way of recruitment, to a continuing relationship. Trevor
expressed how these normative organizations became a new kind of social net-
work/peer group that addressed the expressive and social needs of the men involved,

Often our meetings deal mostly with business of the group, but it’s still a lot of fun. It’s
really just a bunch of guys getting together and joking around . . . However, it can go
from ‘‘guy time’’ to a serious discussion very quickly . . . I used to really enjoy being
able to have serious discussions with other men about masculinity, the things that
society expects from us as guys and which things were bullshit, the kinds of things that
are going on in the world that were fucked up, and also the ability to share personal
stories that really affect us but we rarely get to share because we really don’t have any
place to do it. I remember one meeting . . . one of the guys in the group (who I thought
was just the coolest guy ever) broke down and cried when he was telling us about his
grandfather dying. That was amazing. Knowing it was a safe place to do something like
that, but also knowing that you could still be treated like a ‘‘real man’’—that was a rare
thing that men rarely get to do.

Robert made similar comments about the difference between this new social context
and the normal homosocial relationships to which men are subject,

. . . there’d be a more informal discussion afterwards and it was just for guys . . . you
didn’t have to talk about male things, but often that’s what people used this space for
because they thought that it’s not very common to have a serious, all-male setting. A lot
of the guys [in the group] went to that because that was probably the best thing we
could do to kind of challenge the sort of masculine . . . things that we thought were part
of the problem.

Together, these stories help illustrate the fact that these organizations become
self-sustaining in two ways. First, they rely on the power of influential males to draw
otherwise reluctant participants into the organization. Yet, these programs also
become self-sustaining in that they provide a supportive peer network for the men
involved. Thus, aside from serving the manifest normative functions, participation
in organizations such as these also operate to meet the expressive and social needs
of the men involved.
Piccigallo et al. 519

Discussion
Sexual assault prevention programs are increasingly informed by research showing
programs directed at men to be successful at changing pro-rape attitudes and beha-
viors of male participants (Anderson and Whitson 2005; Brown & Messman-Moore
2010; Foubert 2005; Foubert and Perry 2007; Johannson-Love and Geer 2003;
O’Donohue, Elizabeth, and Fanetti 2003; Paul and Gray 2011; Schewe 2002;
Vladutiu, Martin, and Macy 2011). This article extends our knowledge of these
programs and their effectiveness by offering more detailed information than was
previously available. The men in our study have indicated what exactly they find
effective about such programs, and have offered us insight on the mechanisms that
affected their behavioral change, specifically in the form of movement from pro-
gram participation to group membership and program delivery. Specifically, we find
that when the men were approached in a non confrontational, alliance-building fash-
ion by other men, they reported that their knowledge related to sexual assault, their
empathy toward sexual assault survivors, and their motivation to actively engage in
the prevention of sexual violence all increased. This last effect represents the major
contribution of this study and is seen in the 84 percent of men in our study who
discussed the impact of the peer effect on their decision to join such programs.
Additionally, it is evidence of the self-sustaining and reproductive nature of these
organizations.
Moreover, male-directed and male-led peer to peer education programs such as
these help create and foster alternative social networks and peer groups. As such,
these groups operate beyond their normative organizing principles and serve to meet
the expressive and social needs of the men involved. In doing so, the organization
functions as a supportive system that helps bond the men involved to one another,
as well as the organization, in a fashion that helps ensure its continuance.
There are certainly limitations regarding our findings. First, a disproportionate
number of the men in the sample were white and it is unclear if there are additional
pathways to involvement for other populations or if the same pathways would hold
as much import. Likewise, the programs in which our participants were members are
all located on the East Coast, so there may also be regional effects that are
unaccounted for in our data. When sensitive material is being discussed, there will
always be a concern of social desirability and the possibility that respondents might
underreport behaviors regarded as undesirable in order to present a favorable image
of their selves (Johnson and Fendrich 2002). While it is possible that the men’s
responses in this study were influenced in this manner, it did not appear that the men
were purposely giving false answers in order to improve their image. It is possible
that the men felt their membership in these organizations was sufficient means to
present a positive self-image and, as a result, there may not have been a need to
provide any false or misleading information.
The interviews did not include questions to address concerns of homophobia and
heterosexism arising from the homosocial nature of the programs and their reliance
520 Men and Masculinities 15(5)

on male-on-male sexual assaults (Davis 1999; Kimmel 2010; Lee 2010; Scarce
1999). This omission represents another limitation of these data and this line of ques-
tioning should have been included in the design and execution of the study. This is
especially important, given Trevor’s remark about a lot of the members being
‘‘guys’ guys.’’ Future research should examine these issues directly.
Additionally, the gender of the researcher can also affect the research process.
Having a woman interview men about an issue that has typically been regarded as
a woman’s issue might affect the men’s willingness to openly talk about their
experiences or beliefs toward the issue. Yet, prior research has found that female
interviewers may actually facilitate the research process and allow for more open
and honest dialogue with participants (Mansley 2009; Meloy 2006; Scully 1990).
Considering that the fundamental topic of the interviews, however, the gender
dynamic of the interviewer and participants may have actually reduced any potential
social desirability bias.
Finally, the ability to interview men who attend such programs but do not decide
to join might problematize some of our conclusions. That said, we believe that the
data provided by the men in our sample offer us valuable insights regarding both
policy and future research.
While the men in our sample provide a contextualization of the pathways to
involvement in male-centered peer to peer prevention efforts, prior research, as well
as the related experience of men in our sample, indicates that such programs are
somewhat rare. To that end, we would suggest that college and university adminis-
trations actively and formally seek to establish, institutionalize, support, and to
further evaluate such programs on their campuses to supplement and compliment
existing efforts. The impact of these programs could be exponentially increased with
university support in the form of access to freshman orientation, fraternal and
athletic organizations, as well as classes across the campus in addition to access
to academic resources in the form of evaluation and assessment. Since the majority
of the men in our study also pointed to the fact that they were not exposed to such
groups until reaching college, we would further suggest that the college or university
partner with area junior and senior high schools in the community. By doing so, the
effectiveness and outreach of these organizations could be maximized. The college
or university, in partnership with the local schools, could also help establish similar
programs at the pre- and secondary levels. Such partnerships have previously been
proven effective at the reduction in school-based violence (Renfro, Huebner, and
Ritchey 2003) and the institutionalization of similar programs aimed at the reduction
of sexual violence could work to increase the knowledge and empathy of incoming
students, potentially stemming any future issues at the postsecondary level.
As with any outcome-oriented program, it is important to continuously assess and
evaluate their effectiveness. While qualitative studies such as ours are valuable in
providing insight and context into meanings and behaviors of its participants, we
join others (Teten Tharp et al. 2011) in calling for rigorous outcome evaluation in
the form of quantitative studies as well.
Piccigallo et al. 521

We also want to be clear that we are not calling for the replacement of existing
efforts with male-led and male-centered programs. Rather, our evidence suggests
that such programs may be beneficial to engaging men in the discussion and
providing them with the structured opportunity to address sexual assault and act
as complimentary and supplementary efforts. In working to prevent sexual assaults,
with all their attending individual and social consequences, it is crucial that we look
toward multiple levels of intervention. While we feel that programs such as blue
light alert systems, self-defense classes, and other programs largely aimed at women
as potential victims are valuable and should not be discarded, we also believe that
they represent only part of the solution. Moreover, when we package and present
these risk reduction programs as preventative measures, we run the risk of sending
the signal to females who are sexually assaulted that the incident was somehow their
fault. Young women replay the incident in their head alongside the lessons taught by
these programs and try to find where they went wrong; what precautions they did not
employ that the self-defense program would have had them take, or what ‘‘mis-
takes’’ they might have made that the sexual assault program warned them not to.
For true prevention, men must be engaged. If they are not, we run the risk of more
situations where young men like Harold are left unprepared and unequipped to
adequately support friends who disclose their victimization. Moreover, we also leave
uninterrupted and unchallenged norms of masculinity that are rape supportive. This
last point is central to our position that men must begin to engage other men in this
discussion in a way that is supportive but also challenging without being confronta-
tional. Men must have the conversation that expresses how, in Ralphy’s words, ‘‘it’s
cool to care about sexual violence and it’s cool to stand up against it.’’

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

References
Akers, R., M. Krohn, L. Lanza-Kaduce, and M. Radosevich. 1979. ‘‘Social Learning and Deviant
Behavior: A Specific Test of a General Theory.’’ American Sociological Review 44:636-55.
Anderson, L. A., and S. C. Whitson. 2005. ‘‘Sexual Assault Education Programs: A Meta-
analytic Examination of their Effectiveness.’’ Psychology of Women Quarterly 29:374-88.
Audrey, S., J. Holliday, and R. Campbell. 2006. ‘‘It’s Good to Talk: Adolescent Perspectives of an
Informal, Peer-led Intervention to Reduce Smoking.’’ Social Science & Medicine 63:320-34.
Bachman, R., and R. K. Schutt. 2007. The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal
Justice. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
522 Men and Masculinities 15(5)

Berkowitz, A. D. 2002. ‘‘Fostering Men’s Responsibility for Preventing Sexual Assault.’’ In

Preventing Violence in Relationships, edited by Paul Schewe, 163-96. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Brecklin, L. R., and D. R. Forde. 2001. ‘‘A Meta-analysis of Rape Education Programs.’’ Vio-
lence and Victims 16:303-21.
Brown, A. L., and T. L. Messman-Moore. 2010. ‘‘Personal and Perceived Peer Attitudes Sup-
porting Sexual Aggression as Predictors of Male College Students’ Willingness to Inter-
vene Against Sexual Aggression.’’ Journal of Interpersonal Violence 25:503-17.
Casey, E., and T. Smith. 2010. ‘‘How Can I Not?’’: ‘‘Men’s Pathways to Involvement in Anti-
violence Against Women Work.’’ Violence Against Women 16:953-73.
Choate, L. H. 2003. ‘‘Sexual Assault Prevention Programs for College Men: An Exploratory
Evaluation of the Men against Violence Model.’’ Journal of College Counseling 6:166-76.
Clements, L., and M. Buczkiewicz. 1993. Approaches to Peer-led Health Education. London,
UK: Health Education Authority.
Davis, T. L. 1999. ‘‘The Men’s Program: How to Successfully Lower Men’s Likelihood of
Raping.’’ Journal of College Student Development 40:755-57.
DeKeseredy, W. S., and M. D. Schwartz. 2002. ‘‘Theorizing Public Housing Woman Abuse as
a Function of Economic Exclusion and Male Peer Support.’’ Women’s Health and Urban
Life 1:26-45.
DiClemente, R. 1993. ‘‘Confronting the Challenge of AIDS among Adolescents: Directions
for Future Research.’’ Journal of Adolescent Research 8:156-66.
Fabiano, P. M., H. W. Perkins, A. Berkowitz, J. Linkenbach, and C. Stark. 2003. ‘‘Engaging
Men as Social Justice Allies in Ending Violence against Women: Evidence for a Social
Norms Approach.’’ Journal of American College Health 52:105-12.
Finn, P. 1981. ‘‘Teaching Students to be Lifelong Peer Educators.’’ Health Education 12:13-16.
Foubert, J. D. 2000. ‘‘The Longitudinal Effects of a Rape-prevention Program in Fraternity
Men’s Attitudes, Behavioral Intent, and Behavior.’’ Journal of American College Health
48:158-63.
Foubert, J. D. 2005. The Men’s Program: A Peer Education Guide to Rape Prevention. 3rd ed.
New York: Routledge.
Foubert, J. D., and K. A. Marriott. 1997. ‘‘Effects of a Sexual Assault Peer Education Program
in Men’s Beliefs in Rape Myths.’’ Sex Roles 36:259-68.
Foubert, J. D., and M. K. McEwen. 1998. ‘‘An All-male Rape Prevention Peer Education Pro-
gram: Decreasing Fraternity Men’s Behavioral Intent to Rape.’’ Journal of College Stu-
dent Development 39:548-56.
Foubert, J. D., J. T. Newberry, and J. L. Tatum. 2008. ‘‘Behavior Differences Seven Months
Later:Effects of a Rape Prevention Program.’’ NASPA Journal 44:728-49.
Foubert, J. D., and B. C. Perry. 2007. ‘‘Creating Lasting Attitude and Behavioral Change in
Fraternity Members and Male Student Athletes: The Qualitative Impact of an Empathy-
based Rape Prevention Program.’’ Violence Against Women 13:70-86.
Gidycz, C. A., L. M. Orchowski, and A. D. Berkowitz. 2011. ‘‘Preventing Sexual Aggression
Among College Men: An Evaluation of a Social Norms and Bystander Approach Interven-
tion Program.’’ Violence Against Women 17:720-42.
Piccigallo et al. 523

Gidycz, C. A., C. L. Rich, and N. L. Marioni. 2002. ‘‘Interventions to Prevent Rape and
Sexual Assault.’’ In The Trauma of Adult Sexual Assault: Treatment, Prevention, and Pol-
icy, edited by J. Petrak and B. Hedge, 235-60. New York, NY: Guilford.
Gilbert, B. J., M. Heesacker, and L. J. Gannon. 1991. ‘‘Changing the Sexual Aggression-
supportive Attitudes of Men: A Psychoeducational Intervention.’’ Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology 38:197-203.
Gold, J., and S. Villari. 2000. Just Sex: Students Rewrite the Rules on Sex, Violence, Activism,
and Equality. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Jarvis, M. 1993. ‘‘Peering into Health.’’ Youth Clubs, September, 26-28.
Johannson-Love, J., and J. H. Geer. 2003. ‘‘Investigation of Attitude Change in a Rape Pre-
vention Program.’’ Journal of Interpersonal Violence 8:84-99.
Johnson, T., and M. Fendrich. 2002. A Validation of the Crown-Marlowe Social
Desirability Scale. Accessed April 10, 2005. http://www.srl.uic.edu/publist/Conference/
crownemarlowe.pdf.
Kelly, J., J. St. Lawrence, E. Diaz-Yolanda, L. Stevenson, A. Hauth, T. Brasfield, S. Kalich-
man, J. Smith, and M. Andrew. 1991. ‘‘HIV Risk Behaviour Reduction Following Inter-
vention with Key Opinion Leaders of Population: An Experimental Analysis.’’
American Journal of Public Health 81:168-71.
Kimmel, M. S. 2010. ‘‘Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame, and Silence in the Con-
struction of Gender Identity.’’ In College Men and Masculinities: Theory, Research, and
Implications for Practice, edited by Shaun R. Harper and Frank Harris III, 23-31. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lee, D. 2010. ‘‘Considering Research Results from a Rape Prevention Program.’’ California
Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Accessed August 11, 2011. http://calcasa.org/
prevention/considering-research-results-from-a-rape-prevention-program/.
Mansley, E. A. 2009. Intimate Partner Violence: Race, Social Class, and Masculinity. El
Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly.
Meloy, M. L. 2006. Sex Offenses and the Men Who Commit Them: An Assessment of Sex
Offenders on Probation. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
Milburn, K. 1995. ‘‘A Critical Review of Peer Education with Young People with Particular
Reference to Sexual Health.’’ Health Education Research: Theory & Practice 10:
407-20.
Mellanby, A., R. Newcombe, J. Rees, and J. Tripp. 2001. ‘‘A Comparative Study of Peer-led
and Adult-led School Sex Education.’’ Health Education Research: Theory & Practice
16:481-92.
National Hemophilia Foundation. 1994. Peer-to-Peer Education Programs for Youth: Their
Impact on Comprehensive Health Education. New York, NY: National Hemophilia
Foundation.
O’Donohue, W., A. Y. Elizabeth, and M. Fanetti. 2003. ‘‘Rape Prevention with College
Males: The Role of Rape Myth Acceptance, Victim Empathy, and Outcome Expectan-
cies.’’ Journal of Interpersonal Violence 18:513-31.
O’Hara, P., B. Mesnick, R. Fichtner, and D. Parris. 1996. ‘‘A peer-led AIDS Prevention Pro-
gram for Students in an Alternative School.’’ Journal of School Health 66:176-82.
524 Men and Masculinities 15(5)

Parrot, A. 1990. ‘‘Do Rape Education Programs Influence Rape Patterns among New York
State College Students?’’ Paper presented at the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex,
Minneapolis, MN, November 1990.
Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA:Sage.
Paul, L. A., and M. J. Gray. 2011. ‘‘Sexual Assault Programming on College Campuses:
Using Social Psychological Belief and Behavior Change Principles to Improve Out-
comes.’’ Trauma, Violence, Abuse 12:99-109.
Perry, C. 1989. ‘‘Prevention of Alcohol Use and Abuse in Adolescents: Teachers Versus Peer-
Led intervention.’’ Crisis 10:52-61.
Piccigallo, J. 2008. ‘‘Men Against Rape: Male Students’ Attitudes and Views Toward
Campus-based Sexual Assault and Acquaintance Rape.’’ MA thesis, University of
Delaware.
Renfro, J., R. Huebner, and B. Ritchey. 2003. ‘‘School Violence Prevention: The Effects of a
University and High School Partnership.’’ Journal of School Violence 2:81-99.
Rickert, V., M. Jay, and A. Gottlieb. 1991. ‘‘Effects of a Peer-counseled AIDS Education Pro-
gram on Knowledge, Attitudes, and Satisfaction of Adolescents.’’ Journal of Adolescent
Health 12:38-43.
Scarce, M. 1999. ‘‘The Ends Do not Justify the Means: A Call for the Abandonment of the
Men’s Program Model of Rape Education for Men.’’ Outspoken: Official Newsletter of the
North American Coalition Against Sexual Violence 3:3-4.
Scheel, E. D., E. J. Johnson, M. Schneider, and B. Smith. 2001. ‘‘Making Rape Education Mean-
ingful for Men: The Case for Eliminating the Emphasis on Men as Perpetrators, Protectors, or
Victims.’’ Sociological Practice: A Journal of Clinical and Applied Sociology 3:257-78.
Schewe, P. A. 2002. ‘‘Guidelines for Developing Rape Prevention and Risk Reduction Inter-
ventions.’’ In Preventing Violence in Relationships: Interventions across the Life Span,
edited by Paul Schewe, 107-36. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schewe, P. A., and W. O’Donohue. 1993. ‘‘Rape Prevention: Methodological Problems and
New Directions.’’ Clinical Psychology Review 13:667-82.
Schwartz, M. D., and W. S. DeKeseredy. 1997. Sexual Assault on the College Campus: The
Role of Male Peer Support. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scully, D. 1990. Understanding Sexual Violence. Boston, MA: Unwin Human.
Slap, G., S. Plotkin, N. Khalid, D. Michelman, and C. Forke. 1991. ‘‘A Human Immunodefi-
ciency Virus Peer Education Program for Adolescent Females.’’ Journal of Adolescent
Health 12:434-42.
Sloane, B., and C. Zimmer. 1993. ‘‘The Power of Peer Health Education.’’ Journal of Amer-
ican College Health 41:241-45.
Stein, J. L. 2007. ‘‘Peer Educators and Close Friends as Predictors of Male College Students’
Willingness to Prevent Rape.’’ Journal of College Student Development 48:75-89.
Straus, A. L., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Proce-
dures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Teten Tharp, A. L., S. DeGrue, K. Lang, L. A. Valle, G. Massetti, M. Holt, and J. Matjasko.
2011. ‘‘Commentary on Foubert, Godin, & Tatum (2010): The Evolution of Sexual
Piccigallo et al. 525

Violence Prevention and the Urgency for Effectiveness.’’ Journal of Interpersonal

Violence 26:3383-3392.
Vladutiu, C. J., S. L. Martin, and R. J. Macy. 2011. ‘‘College- or University-Based Sexual
Assault Prevention Programs: A Review of Program Outcomes, Characteristics, And
Recommendations.’’ Trauma, Violence, Abuse 12:67-86.
Weber, M. 1948. ‘‘Politics as a Vocation.’’ In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited
by Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, 77-128. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Woodcock, A., K. Stenner, and R. Ingham. 1992. ‘‘All These Contraceptives, Videos and that . . .
Young People Talking about School Sex Education.’’ Health Education Research 7:517-31.

Bios
Jacqueline R. Piccigallo received her master’s degree from the University of Delaware’s
Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice in 2008. Currently, she is an analyst for the
Department of Justice in Washington, DC.
Terry G. Lilley is an assistant professor in the Department of Women’s, Gender, and Sexu-
ality Studies at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. He received his PhD from the Depart-
ment of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Delaware. His research interests
include intersectionality, victim services and advocacy, and media and crime. His current
work explores how the professionalization and institutionalization of victim services and
advocacy affects the participation of groups working in the field.
Susan L. Miller is a professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Dela-
ware. Her research interests include gender and criminal justice policy, violence against
women, and restorative justice. Her recent books include After the Crime: The Power of
Restorative Justice Dialogues between Victims and Violent Offenders (New York University,
2011), The Victimization of Women: Laws, Policies, and Politics (with Michelle Meloy,
Oxford, 2011), and Victims as Offenders: Women’s Use of Violence in Relationships (Rutgers,
2005).