No abstract

A randomized clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the Navy Sexual Assault Intervention Training (SAIT) program for men. A four-group Solomon design was used to control for possible pretest sensitization effects. Male Navy personnel (N = 1,505) were assessed for rape knowledge, rape myth acceptance (two scales), and rape empathy after participating in the SAIT program or viewing an educational video about HIV/AIDS (comparison condition). The SAIT program was found to be effective in increasing rape knowledge, reducing rape myth acceptance, and increasing empathy for rape victims. As expected, men who had exhibited previous coercive sexual behavior, compared with those who had not, reported lower levels of knowledge, higher levels of rape myth acceptance, and less rape empathy. However, the SAIT program was generally effective in changing men's knowledge, beliefs, and feelings on the key measures, regardless of participants' histories of coercive sexual behavior.

The U.S. Navy Sexual Assault Intervention Training (SAIT) program for women was evaluated in a randomized clinical trial. The SAIT uses multiple presentation modalities (lecture, slides, discussion, film) to provide information related to sexual assault, including risk factors, consequences, prevention, and relevant military regulations. Female personnel who had completed basic training (N = 550) participated in the SAIT or a Comparison condition, and then completed measures of rape knowledge, empathy for rape victims, and acceptance of rape myths (false beliefs about rape justifying sexual violence). Results showed that the SAIT increased factual knowledge about rape. In addition, the SAIT increased empathy with rape victims in some groups of women. However, the program did not reduce women's rape myth acceptance. Given the enormity of the problem of sexual assault and these promising initial findings, additional research on the efficacy of the SAIT is clearly warranted.

C onservative Protestantism (i.e., fundamentalist or evangelical Christianity) has been accused of tolerating or even encouraging the physical abuse of children. For example, historian Phillip Greven (1990) suggested that Conservative Protestants are at heightened risk of perpetrating child physical abuse (CPA) because of their literal interpretations of biblical passages such as "He that spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24, King James Version). Similarly, Capps (1992, 1995) argued that elements of traditional Christian doctrine support and promote CPA among fundamentalist Christian parents (see also Bottoms, Nielsen, Murray, & Filipas, 2003; Maurer, 1982; Straus, 1994). The notion that Conservative Protestants-relative to people with other religious affiliations and nonreligious persons-have a greater propensity to commit CPA appears to be fairly widespread. However, we could find no empirical research comparing individuals with different religious affiliations in terms of either CPA risk or rate of CPA perpetration. 1 Instead, proponents of the fundamentalism-CPA connection have bolstered their claims with reference to anecdotal evidence and case studies or textual analysis of religious texts and parenting manuals (Greven, 1990; Capps 1992, 1995; cf. Bartkowski & Ellison, 1995). Although no research has documented associations between religious affiliation and CPA risk, substantial research has documented associations between religious affiliation and the endorsement and use of physical discipline of children. Studies have consistently demonstrated that, on average, Conservative Protestants have more favorable attitudes toward corporal punishment (Danso, Huns

No abstract