Schewe P A, O'Donohue W
Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb 60115.
Violence Vict. 1993 Winter;8(4):339-51.
The outcome of two sexual abuse prevention programs, one emphasizing victim empathy and the other stressing modifying rape myths, was evaluated with high-risk males. Sixty-eight high-risk males, as determined by self-reported likelihood of committing sexual abuse, were randomly assigned to an empathy-treatment, a facts-treatment, or a no-treatment control group. Treatment effects were assessed using subjects' pre- and post-treatment scores on the Likelihood of Sexually Abusing scale, the Rape Empathy Scale, the Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence scale, the Adversarial Sexual Beliefs Scale, and a test of self-reported sexual arousal to forced versus consenting sex. In addition, posttest scores on an Asch-type conformity measure were obtained. Results of validity checks indicated that high-risk subjects differed from low-risk subjects on a number of rape-related variables, that the victim-empathy condition increased subjects' empathy, and that subjects found both treatments to be credible and helpful. Comparisons between the empathy-, facts-, and no-treatment group contraindicated the practice of dispelling rape myths as a method of preventing rape among high-risk males.
对两个性虐待预防项目的效果进行了评估，这两个项目一个强调受害者同理心，另一个强调修正强奸谬见，研究对象为高危男性。根据自我报告的实施性虐待可能性确定的68名高危男性被随机分配到同理心治疗组、事实治疗组或无治疗对照组。使用受试者在性虐待可能性量表、强奸同理心量表、人际暴力接受量表、对抗性性信念量表上的治疗前和治疗后得分，以及一项关于自我报告的对强迫性行为与自愿性行为的性唤起测试来评估治疗效果。此外，还获得了阿施型从众测量的测试后得分。效度检验结果表明，高危受试者在一些与强奸相关的变量上与低危受试者不同，受害者同理心条件增加了受试者的同理心，并且受试者认为两种治疗都可信且有帮助。同理心治疗组、事实治疗组和无治疗组之间的比较表明，消除强奸谬见作为预防高危男性强奸的一种方法并不适用。
