Rates of sexual violence on US university campuses did not change between 1985 and 2015. In fact,  they may have actually increased since 2015. This is despite the US government and individual universities spending millions on sexual violence prevention programmes and research. For years, this has left officials and researchers scratching their heads. What could explain this?

Now, a massive new meta-analysis (a study that combines and analyses the results of many previous studies looking into a particular topic) which covers all previous global research on sexual violence prevention has revealed the answer. It seems that the long-standing theory behind these programmes is inherently flawed.

For decades, social scientists have presumed that if you change people’s attitudes or ideas about sexual violence, then this will lead to a change in behaviour, and therefore a drop in violence. And so the vast majority of sexual prevention programmes around the world have targeted the mind: what people think and believe about sexual violence, why it occurs, the kinds of people who perpetrate it and are victimised. One central target of such programmes are so-called “rape myths”, such as the ideas that “some women deserve to be raped”, or that “when women say no, they really mean yes”.

Many of the interventions analysed in the recent study were successful at countering these rape myths. But a corresponding decrease in violence wasn’t found. Where there was any evidence of violence reduction, it was miniscule compared to the change in people’s ideas. The assumption that our thoughts are the primary cause of our behaviour has guided sexual violence reduction since the beginning of the field. But according to this new research, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

According to the WHO, about 1 in 3 women globally have experienced physical sexual violence. And 2017 data found that these figures rise to over 50% of women and almost one in three men in the US. In this context, the recent study certainly provides a “damning wake-up call to the field of sexual violence prevention”, an expert response to the paper observed.

Here’s The Evidence

The meta-analysis covered 295 studies conducted in 13 countries from 1985-2018. Most (89%) were conducted in the US, and most of these in turn focused on university campuses – where the majority of research on sexual violence prevention has been carried out, globally.

The researchers traced three quite distinct eras in sexual violence prevention programmes: an initial period in which programmes focused on educating teenagers about dating violence; a second era which targeted male empathy for sexual violence victims through education programmes; and a third era (still dominant today) which, rather than targeting potential victims or perpetrators, aims to encourage “bystander action” from the community as a whole through education programmes that encourage people to help others in danger and speak up against sexist ideas.

While these three eras take quite different approaches, the researchers found that the underlying theory behind them remained the same: the assumption that in order to change behaviour, we need to change people’s ideas. They found that none of these approaches have an effect on perpetration rates. Changing what people think about sexual violence just doesn’t seem to change how they behave.

I spoke to two experts on the subject: Ana Gantman, Assistant Professor of Psychology at Brooklyn College (CUNY), who co-authored the study, as well as one of the authors of an accompanying comment piece: Elise Lopez, Assistant Director of the Relationship Violence Program at the University of Arizona. I was surprised to find that, rather than being discouraged, both researchers were feeling quite positive about the results.

Lopez explained: “I wasn’t surprised by them, I was more excited than anything. They demonstrated what I and many other researchers have grappled with over the years. If we’re putting millions of dollars into research and prevention programmes, why haven’t the numbers changed in over 30 years? Now we have concrete insight into why. When you identify a fundamental flaw, you can stop recreating the wheel and instead grasp the opportunity to create something new.”

A sea change

The paper reminded me of another in a very different field: the climate crisis. Three years ago, neuroscientist Kris de Meyer and his colleagues argued that climate communicators should stop trying to persuade people that climate change is an issue, and instead focus on telling stories of action. “The conventional wisdom”, they write, is that increasing people’s understanding of climate change is a “necessary precursor” for action and behaviour change. But “in real life, the relationships between beliefs and behaviour often goes in the opposite direction: our actions change our beliefs.”

Is the similar realisation in the field of sexual violence prevention part of a more general reappraisal of the idea that by changing peoples attitudes, you can change their behaviour?

“Absolutely”, Gantman says. “Psychologists know that there is a space between what we think, what we want, what we believe and what we actually do.”

This might be because the relationship between the two is purely “probabilistic”. Things get in the way of us acting in accordance with the way we’d like to act in an ideal world. She gives me an example: someone might have a desire to speak up if they hear a person making a sexist joke, but in the moment another desire to maintain social cohesion might prevail, or they simply might not know what to say.

And while the relationship between our ideas and actions might sometimes correlate, that doesn’t necessarily mean that one has caused the other. Say the person who believes in the importance of intervening when they hear sexist jokes actually does so. The reason they did, in the moment, could be any number of things: maybe they had recently seen someone else intervene successfully on a TV show, so they had the phrase ready to go. Or perhaps they were amongst a group in which they felt comfortable and respected, and so they spoke up because they knew those people would respect them further for doing so. “We can act consistently with our desires, but it’s not necessarily the case that our desires are the causal mechanism,” explains Gantman.

Lopez points out that we already know all of this when it comes to health. We know that you can educate people about the importance of eating healthily, exercising, or getting enough sleep, but that isn’t necessarily going to change their behaviour. “It really goes beyond changing ideas and attitudes, although this can be a useful first step,” she says. “You also have to change people’s self-confidence about engaging in healthy behaviour, give them the social support to do so, and think about the environment that they’re living in.”

Change in approach

So what kinds of interventions might actually work when it comes to sexual violence prevention? Thinking about physical space is a central theme here.

Gantman tells me: “Students tell us that often the only social spaces they have to go to when parties are over are their bedrooms, and that these doors often automatically shut for fire safety – giving the impression that no one else is in.” As such, she suggests that providing more neutral communal spaces might allow for other behaviour – i.e. if a bed isn’t there, people are less likely to think about the possibility of sex.

The researchers also emphasised integrating sexual violence prevention education into general sexual health education. “I think if we were teaching people how to have happy, healthy, consensual, ideally mutually orgasmic sex, then maybe we would see less instances where people are in situations like heavy drinking for example that make sex riskier,” says Lopez.

There is also some evidence that self defence classes can reduce perpetration rates – though this is controversial, as some believe it misplaces the responsibility for sexual assaults onto victims. In Kenya, unconditional cash transfers were shown to reduce sexual violence when given to women. And in Rhode Island, reported rape offences fell by 30% when indoor sex work was decriminalised. All of these demonstrate the multitude of different approaches that might be taken, if attitudes and funding norms allow.

It’s important to note that the findings of this study do not mean that the past few decades of work on sexual violence prevention have been for nothing. Changing ideas is still valuable. “I was massively impressed by some of the interventions that we reviewed,” Gantman says.  “Changing people’s ideas about sexual violence is important! But this just isn’t the right lever to pull to reduce sexual violence rates.”

Research Round-up

Here’s what else is making the news in gender inequality research:

1. 💔Divorce can be good for gender equality! In countries where child custody tends to be split 50/50, divorce has been shown to lead to rising contributions to household work from men.
2. ✍️Gender equality has improved in the world of research over the past two decades, with women representing 41% of researchers in 2022, compared to 28% in 2001. However, in the physical sciences this figure stands at just 33%.
3. 💰Women are more successful than men at crowdfunding campaigns. Those fronted by women reach their fundraising targets 20% faster than those promoted by men.

Get in touch

We’d love to know what you think about The Evidence. Do you have any suggestions about format or content? What topics relating to research into gender equity are you particularly interested in hearing about?

About The Evidence

The Evidence is a supplement to the Impact newsletter designed to help you understand gender inequality – and show how we might fix it. Impact is a weekly newsletter of feminist journalism, dedicated to the rights of women and gender-diverse people worldwide.

This is the English version of our newsletter; you can read the French one here.