A Theory-Based Intervention to Reduce Risk and Vulnerability Factors of Sexual Aggression Perpetration and Victimization in German University Students

Figures & data

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of All Model Variables.

	T1			T2			T3			T4
Variable (Range)	Total M/SD	M M/SD	F M/SD	Total M/SD	M M/SD	F M/SD	Total M/SD	M M/SD	F M/SD	Total M/SD	M M/SD	F M/SD
Risky sexual scripts(1–25)	7.11 3.01	7.43 3.11	6.94 2.95	6.76 2.88	7.04 2.93	6.61 2.84	6.67 2.77	6.99^a 2.74	6.50^b 2.77	6.86 2.71	6.93 2.67	6.55 2.72
Sexual self-esteem(1–5)	3.73 0.68	3.78 0.64	3.71 0.70	3.70 0.67	3.78^a 0.63	3.66^b 0.69	3.70 0.67	3.73 0.65	3.68 0.68	3.72 0.67	3.75 0.64	3.71 0.69
Acceptance of sexual coercion (1–5)	1.42 0.58	1.42 0.60	1.42 0.57	-	-	-	1.28 0.48	1.27 0.51	1.28 0.47	1.24 0.45	1.24 0.48	1.24 0.44
Pornography realism (1–25)	5.45 3.43	7.59^a 3.68	4.26^b 2.61	-	-	-	4.55 3.30	6.65^a 3.51	3.44^b 2.57	4.74 3.29	6.80^a 3.50	3.68^b 2.61
Risky sexual behavior (1–5)	2.04 0.60	2.02 0.62	2.05 0.59	-	-	-	1.72 0.59	1.75 0.60	1.70 0.59	1.69 0.58	1.77 0.60	1.65 0.57
Refusal assertiveness (1–5)	3.76 0.86	3.50^a 0.88	3.90^b 0.81	3.83 0.82	3.57^a 0.86	3.97^b 0.76	3.83 0.81	3.64^a 0.84	3.93^b 0.78	3.89 0.82	3.71^a 0.82	3.98^b 0.80
Initiation assertiveness (1–5)	3.17 0.95	3.21 0.89	3.15 0.98	3.15 0.90	3.20 0.86	3.13 0.92	3.19 0.95	3.21 0.89	3.18 0.98	3.20 0.94	3.31 0.88	3.14 0.97

Note. Critical p for comparisons of means between gender groups: .05/7 = .007 at T1, T3, and T4; .05/4 = .0125 at T2. ^ab Values are significantly different between men and women. M = male; F = female.

Table 2. Bivariate Correlations between the Predictor Variables at T1.

Construct	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Risky sexual scripts	-	.01	.25***	.29***	.59***	−.21***	.05	.19***
2. Sexual self-esteem	.05	-	−.04	.02	−.03	.12*	.23***	.14**
3. Acceptance of sex. coercion	.02	−.02	-	.22***	.17**	−.25***	.04	−.07
4. Pornography realism	.15***	.02	.15***	-	.23***	−.10*	.06	.07
5. Risky sexual behavior	.67***	−.05	.01	.10*	-	−.15**	.13*	.24***
6. Refusal assertiveness	−.17***	.25***	−.16***	−.11**	−.23***	-	.08	−.02
7. Initiation assertiveness	−.09*	.35***	−.03	−.01	−.04	.16***	-	.07
8. Age	.15***	.16***	−.06	.05	.22***	.02	.13***	-

Note. Correlations for men above the diagonal, correlations for women below the diagonal. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05 (two-tailed). Correlations in bold are significantly different (p < .05, two-tailed) between men and women.

Figure 1. Intervention Effects on Risky Sexual Scripts.

Note. Condition: 0 = control, 1 = intervention. Single-group model with gender as covariate on all paths. Indirect path from condition to risky scripts T4 is significant. Critical paths highlighted in bold. *** p < .001, * p < .05.

Figure 2. Interactive Effect of Condition x Risky Scripts T1 on Risky Scripts T2.

Note. CG = Control group; IG = Intervention group.

Table 3. Intervention Effects: Significant Indirect Paths.

Paths	ß	C.I.
Condition -> Risky scripts T2 -> Risky scripts T3 -> Risky scripts T4	−.020	−.035; −.008**
Condition x Risky scripts T1 -> Risky scripts T2 -> Risky scripts T3 -> Risky scripts T4	−.011	−.023; −.001*
Condition -> Sex. self-esteem T2 -> Sex. self-esteem T3 -> Sex. self-esteem T4	.014	.004; .027**
Condition -> Initiation assertiveness T2 -> Initiation assert. T3 -> Initiation assert. T4	.029^+	.010; .053**
Condition -> Risky scripts T2 -> Risky behavior T3 -> Risky behavior T4	−.011	−.020; −.004**
Condition x Risky scripts T1 -> Risky scripts T2 -> Risky behavior T3	−.011	−.023; −.001*
Condition -> Sexual self-esteem T2 -> Refusal assert. T3	.005	.001; .011*
Condition -> Sexual self-esteem T2 -> Refusal assert. T4	.008	.002; .018**
Condition -> Sexual self-esteem T2 -> Initiation assert. T3	.010	.003; .021**
Condition -> Sexual self-esteem T2 -> Initiation assert. T4	.007	.001; .016**
Condition -> Sexual self-esteem T2 -> Initiation assert. T3 -> Initiation assert. T4	.005	.001; .010**

Note. Condition: 0 = control group; 1 = intervention group.  C.I.: bias-corrected standardized confidence intervals. All paths controlled for respective T1 scores. ** 99% C.I., * 95% C.I. ⁺ Unstandardized coefficient (b).

Figure 3. Intervention Effects on Sexual Self-Esteem.

Note. Condition: 0 = control, 1 = intervention. Single-group model with gender as covariate on all paths. Indirect path from condition to sexual self-esteem T4 is significant. Critical paths highlighted in bold. *** p < .001, * p < .05.

Figure 4. Intervention Effects on Initiation Assertiveness.

Note. Condition: 0 = control, 1 = intervention. Constrained multigroup model by gender, unstandardized coefficients. Indirect paths from condition to initiation assertiveness at T4 is significant. Critical paths highlighted in bold. *** p < .001, * p < .05.

Figure 5. Indirect Intervention Effects on Risky Sexual Behavior via Risky Sexual Scripts.

Note. Condition: 0 = control, 1 = intervention. Single-group model with gender as covariate on all paths. Indirect path from condition via risky sexual scripts T2 to risky sexual behavior T4 is significant. Indirect path from the interaction of condition and risky sexual scripts T1 is significant to T3, but not T4. Critical paths highlighted in bold. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.

Figure 6. Indirect Intervention Effects on Sexual Assertiveness via Sexual Self-Esteem.

Note. Condition: 0 = control, 1 = intervention. Single-group model with gender as covariate on all paths. All T2-T4 constructs controlled for their respective T1 scores, and correlations between sexual self-esteem, refusal assertiveness, and initiation assertiveness at T1 included in the model. Indirect paths from condition via sexual self-esteem T2 to refusal assertiveness and initiation assertiveness T3 and T4 are significant. Critical paths highlighted in bold. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.