Engaging Men in Violence Prevention

1. Engaging Men in Violence Prevention Christopher T. Allen, Ph.D. Post-Doctoral Associate Center on Violence Against Women & Children Rutgers University, School of Social Work 1

2. Violence Against Womenon College Campuses • Intimate partner violence (IPV) in college dating relationships is a serious and prevalent problem • IPV in college relationships in the United States ranged from 18% to 45% in the past year • 25% of women experience a completed or attempted rape during their college careers • Awareness of violence against women as an important social issue is primarily a result of female women’s rights activists 2

3. Men & Violence Prevention • Ending violence against women must involve both women and men • Challenging men’s violence against women can be difficult for men • Feminist analyses of violence against women argue that traditional conceptions of masculinity play a major role in violence against women 3

4. Violence Prevention & Men: The Literature • No empirical research has examined how masculinity is related to men’s apathy, hostility, or resistance toward prevention • To engage men as allies in violence prevention, we must examine how aspects of masculinity inhibit men’s involvement 4

5. Aims of the Study • Primary Aims: • To examine how masculine norms are related to men’s perceived ability to prevent violence • To examine how masculine norms are related to violence 5

6. Constructs of Interest • Conformity to Masculine Norms • Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (Mahalik et al., 2003) • Support for Gender Equality • Men’s Active Support for Gender Equality Scale (Allen, 2010) • Violence Prevention Self-Efficacy • Bystander Efficacy Scale (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2005) • MVP+ Efficacy Scale (Swan & Allen, 2008) • Violence Perpetration & Victimization • Conflict Tactics Scales-2 (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) 6

7. Hypotheses • Men’s support of gender equality will mediate the relationship between conformity to masculine norms and men’s violence prevention self-efficacy - Conformity to Masculine Norms Active Support for Gender Equality + Violence Prevention Self-Efficacy 7

8. Hypotheses • Men’s support of gender equality will mediate the relationship between conformity to masculine norms and men’s experiences of physical violence in their intimate relationships Physical Violence - Conformity to Masculine Norms Active Support for Gender Equality - 8

9. Hypotheses • Men’s experiences of physical violence will be negatively related to men’s violence prevention self-efficacy Physical Violence - Violence Prevention Self-Efficacy 9

10. Participants & Procedures • Participants • 349 men • All identified as heterosexual • Ranged in age from 18 to 25 years old (M = 20.96 years) • Racially representative of U.S. Census Bureau’s 2005-2007 American Community Survey (2008): • 67% Caucasian • 11% Hispanic • 7% Asian-American • 7% African-American • 3% “Bicultural” • 1% East Indian • 1% Middle Eastern • 2% “Other” • 1% preferred not to identify their race • 67% currently attending college • 8% members of a Greek organization 10

11. Data Analysis • Structural equation modeling was used to simultaneously test hypotheses • Mediation effects tested using the bias-corrected bootstrap sampling method suggested MacKinnon and colleagues (1998) 11

12. Tested Structural Model Physical Violence Conformity to Masculine Norms Active Support for Gender Equality Violence Prevention Self-Efficacy NOTE: Model is estimated controlling for social desirability effects 12

13. Results: Model Fit Physical Violence Conformity to Masculine Norms Active Support for Gender Equality Violence Prevention Self-Efficacy χ2 = 161.53, p ≤ .01 RMSEA = 0.06 TLI = .98 CFI = .96 WRMR = 1.05 13

14. Hypothesis 1: Supported Physical Violence -.58*** Conformity to Masculine Norms Active Support for Gender Equality .82*** .09 Indirect effect = -.48 (95% CI = −0.72 to −0.24; p ≤ .001) *** = Significant at p ≤ .001 NOTE: Path coefficients are standardized Violence Prevention Self-Efficacy 14

15. Hypothesis 2: Not Supported Physical Violence .45*** .20 -.58*** Conformity to Masculine Norms Active Support for Gender Equality Indirect effect = -.12 (95% CI = −0.31 to 0.07; p = .13, ns) *** = Significant at p ≤ .001 NOTE: Path coefficients are standardized Violence Prevention Self-Efficacy 15

16. Hypothesis 3: Supported Physical Violence Conformity to Masculine Norms Active Support for Gender Equality -.48** Violence Prevention Self-Efficacy ** = Significant at p ≤ .01 NOTE: Path coefficients are standardized 16

17. Discussion & Implications • Both men’s conformity to traditional masculine norms and attitudes regarding gender equality should be targeted by violence prevention programs for men • Men’s experiences of violence in their intimate relationships have serious implications for their perceived ability to prevent violence. Prevention programs should address issues of men’s perpetration and victimization to increase men’s self-efficacy to prevent violence 17

18. Limitations • Self-report of perpetration and victimization; no data from couples • Only examined conformity to masculine norms related to violence, dominance, power over women, and being a “playboy” – results may not generalize to other norms • SEM models were tested using only participants who identified as heterosexual who ranged in age from 18-25; results of this study may not generalize to men with other sexual identities or in other age groups. 18

19. Funders • Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) • The Society for the Psychology of Women (APA Division 35) • The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (APA Division 9) • The Laura Griffin Fund, Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina 19