谁被视为潜在受害者、犯罪者或旁观者?对美国实施的针对不同性别的校园性侵犯预防计划进行评估的系统回顾和元分析》(A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Research Evaluating Gender-Specific Campus Sexual Assault Prevention Programs Implemented in the United States.

IF 5.4 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Trauma Violence & Abuse Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI:10.1177/15248380241271412
Heather Hensman Kettrey,Martie P Thompson,Robert A Marx,Alyssa J Davis
{"title":"谁被视为潜在受害者、犯罪者或旁观者?对美国实施的针对不同性别的校园性侵犯预防计划进行评估的系统回顾和元分析》(A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Research Evaluating Gender-Specific Campus Sexual Assault Prevention Programs Implemented in the United States.","authors":"Heather Hensman Kettrey,Martie P Thompson,Robert A Marx,Alyssa J Davis","doi":"10.1177/15248380241271412","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":54211,"journal":{"name":"Trauma Violence & Abuse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"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.\",\"authors\":\"Heather Hensman Kettrey,Martie P Thompson,Robert A Marx,Alyssa J Davis\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15248380241271412\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trauma Violence & Abuse\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trauma Violence & Abuse\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241271412\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trauma Violence & Abuse","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241271412","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

校园性侵犯问题主要影响的是顺性别女性和变性、跨性别/有疑问和非二元性(TGQN)学生。然而,任何性别的学生都有可能成为攻击行为的实施者或受害者。因此,重要的是,预防计划应纳入一系列情景,将不同性别描述为施暴者和受害者,同时也承认性别群体之间的风险差异。针对不同性别的计划是实现这一目标的途径之一。在这篇系统综述和荟萃分析中,我们综合了美国针对特定性别群体实施的校园性侵犯预防计划的评估研究。通过全面的文献检索,我们确定了 38 项符合资格标准并通过 2021 年传播的研究(N = 22 项女性研究;N = 16 项男性研究;N = 0 项 TGQN 研究)。绝大多数计划都将女性描绘成受害者,将男性描绘成施暴者或旁观者,而在很大程度上忽视了 TGQN 学生的经历。更多的女性项目包含了降低风险的内容,转述了参与者可以用来避免受害的策略。更多的男性项目包含了旁观者的内容,强调参与者可以阻止他人实施性侵犯的方法。女性项目对受害情况的影响较小,但效果显著且有利,但对这些项目进行评估的研究并未对犯罪结果进行衡量。男性项目对犯罪行为的影响不显著,但没有对受害结果进行测量。针对不同性别的预防计划应开始反映不同性别身份的犯罪和受害风险的差异,并应对计划内容的效果进行严格评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.60
自引率
7.80%
发文量
131
期刊介绍: Trauma, Violence, & Abuse is devoted to organizing, synthesizing, and expanding knowledge on all force of trauma, abuse, and violence. This peer-reviewed journal is practitioner oriented and will publish only reviews of research, conceptual or theoretical articles, and law review articles. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse is dedicated to professionals and advanced students in clinical training who work with any form of trauma, abuse, and violence. It is intended to compile knowledge that clearly affects practice, policy, and research.
期刊最新文献
Mapping the Landscape of Trauma-Informed Care in Social Work: A Critical Scoping Review. The Impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences on Cognitive Control Across the Lifespan: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies Protective and Promotive Factors in Migrant and Refugee Children Facing Violence: A Systematic Review Psychological Predictors of Recidivism for Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrators: A Systematic Scoping Review Outcomes Associated with Arrest for Domestic Violence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1