Rewriting Sexual Violence Prevention: A Comparative Rhetorical Analysis of Online Prevention Courses in the United States and New Zealand

How the Courses Treated the Audience (Sub-category 2)

The second subcategory was the audience focus, analyzing if each screen capture treated the audience as a bystander, potential perpetrator, potential victim, person responding to sexual violence, or person creating an identity (see Table 2). Breitenbecher and Scarce (2001) studied prevention programming targeted at females which treated the audience as potential victims and found participants had negative emotional responses. Choate (2003) created a Men Against Violence model wherein prevention programming addressed men as potential bystanders. Bystander-focused prevention increases confidence in intervening (Choate, 2003; Kleinsasser et. al., 2015). Those who identify as male can sometimes be hostile towards prevention programming, which treats the audience as potential perpetrators (Rich et. al., 2010). Identity building and response- focused content were added as categories due to the appearance of both in the courses, though little research supports either as a best practice. Thus, bystander prevention is the most effective overall.

Table 2: How the audience is addressed in both courses

Variable	Definition	Example
Bystander focused*	Focuses on the audience as bystanders who can intervene in instances of sexual violence	The example titled A Prank or a Problem? Preventing your friend Brody from stalking his ex from the US course
Victim focused	Focuses on the audience as potential victims and gives advice on how to prevent victimization	“Sexual assault is when a person touches you inappropriately” from the New Zealand course
Perpetrator focused	Focuses on potential perpetrators and gives tactics to prevent the audience from committing acts of sexual violence	An example asking “What should Ian do?” in the US course. Maria falls asleep and you have to decide what Ian should do
Response focused	Focuses on the audience as those who are responding to instances of sexual violence	“You’ll learn how to recognize and address sexual harassment and stalking and what you can do if you or someone you care about is affected by these issues” from a screen capture in the US course
Identity focused	Focuses on the audience as individuals who form identities and values for themselves	“In part, your values represent what you stand for. They influence your identity and how you relate to others” from a screen capture in the US course

How the Audience is Addressed in Both Courses

Forty-two screen captures (24%) in the US course treated the users as potential responders, an interesting audience lens for a course on sexual violence prevention. Screen capture 148 treated the users as those responding to sexual violence prevention as a victim, “even if you are undecided about filing a report, it’s important to consider preserving evidence in case you decide to report in the future.”

While bystander intervention is seen as the most effective audience focus, the course only had 12 screen captures (6%) that treated the audience as potential bystanders. Screen capture 93 provides users with “what you can do to step in if you see a potentially problematic situation.” Screen capture 120 outlines how the next few screen captures will go over what to “do if you saw someone in an unsafe or problematic situation.” Screen captures 121-124 focused on how users can distract, delegate, and direct, and each includes a video of what the respective strategy looks like at a party.

More of the screen captures addressed the audience as potential perpetrators instead of bystanders. Fifteen screen captures (8%) took this approach with some practical examples. On screen captures 109 and 110, the user is presented with an example where Kim has said “no” to Jameel multiple times and the user has to decide what Jameel should do. On screen capture 111, the course advises, “When we think about interacting with people sexually or otherwise, our values should be our guide.” In contrast, zero of the screen captures dealt with the students as potential victims.

The course also treated the audience as builders of identity. One of the larger modules also covered identity building, and the course focused on how we can uphold our values through respecting others’ identities. Screen capture 42 states, “Values and identities are central to our relationships.” Other parts of the course touched on how to show up authentically, as one of the characters in Video 5 stated, “Just be who you want to be, but also let people know that this is who I am and it’s OK to be who I am.” This sentiment weaved throughout the course with equal emphasis on forming one’s own identity and respecting the identities of others.

The New Zealand course primarily used potential perpetrator prevention and focused on how the audience could respect others’ rights by not acting in a harmful way. Eleven (68%) of the screen captures treated the audience as a potential perpetrator, such as screen capture 7 which read, “It (consent) also means taking responsibility to ensure that the person you are attracted to is comfortable and agrees to go further.” In contrast, two screen captures treated the audience as potential victims, using sentences such as “Sexual assault is when a person touches you inappropriately.”

Only one screen capture treated the audience as a bystander, though it did include a question on bystander intervention and gave a couple bystander intervention strategies. Screen capture 13 dealt with response to sexual violence prevention and gave the users location specific contact information. Zero questions treated the audience as creators of an identity. Overall, the course didn’t enact research that showed bystander intervention as the most effective perspective for a course, though research out of New Zealand and Australia suggests perpetrator prevention to be the most effective within those cultures (Svejkar et al., 2019).

The majority of the New Zealand screen captures focused on the audience as potential perpetrators while the US course focused on how the audience could act as bystanders. Past evidence shows bystander intervention as the most effective approach, yet some research points to perpetrator intervention being effective when it is employed in the right social environment (Choate, 2003; Svejkar et. al., 2019). The differences in how the courses treat the audience could be a reflection of different cultures, especially paying attention to the aversion of some Americans to perpetrator-based prevention (Rich et. al, 2010).

Messaging Strategies (Subcategory 3)

Messaging, the third subcategory, covered empowering messaging, negative messaging, value appeals, providing measurable goals, and constructing a narrative around course content (see Table 3). Baker, Henriquez, and Hostler (2018) found prevention programming that has measurable goals and appeals to shared values is more successful. They also stressed the importance of empowering messaging over negative messaging. The CDC guide on sexual violence prevention also emphasizes the importance of conveying what prevention looks like in measurable terms (Dills & Brown, 2019). Gold et. al (2010) also highlighted the importance in empowering and promotional messaging for public health concerns as people are more likely to take action if they feel empowered.

Table 3: Messaging strategies in both courses

Variable	Definition	Example
Constructs narrative for course*	Refers back to previous materials or themes to connect two or more modules together in one cohesive narrative about prevention	A screen capture in the US course connects survivors’ experiences to their identities, as referenced earlier in the Gender Identities and Stereotypes module
Appeals to values*	Discusses values shared by the presenter and audience and how those values could be implemented in prevention	“If you ever thought ‘I want to help’, you’re not alone” from the US course
Measurable goal*	An instance where a specific strategy to deal with prevention is given and serves as an accessible example the user could utilize in their own life	A video in the New Zealand course defines consent and gives strategies so the user
Empowering messaging*	Content which inspires the user to take action	“We encourage you to use your experiences, your perspective, and your values to make a positive impact on your community” from the US course
Negative messaging	Content which warns the user against a certain action	The US course discusses the negative effects of alcohol consumption and warns users against intoxication

Messaging Strategies in the US and New Zealand Courses

The first variable in subcategory three, narrative construction, occurred around the content that treated the audience as identity- creators. For example, screen captures 54, 55, and 56 relate different forms of abuse back to violated values to create cohesion with the personal values activity in the same module. In the Consent, Coercion, and Stepping In module, screen capture 111 relates back to the identity module when it states, “our values should be our guide” to not coercing others. However, only seven screen captures created a narrative, meaning it did not run throughout the entire course.

Another messaging strategy underutilized by the US course was appealing to shared values, which the course did only ten times (5%). Screen capture 128 appeals to shared values in a college community: “Everyone wants to live, learn, and work in a safe and supportive environment.” However, other screen captures focus on the contrast in values instead of similarities. Screen capture 42 advocates, “It’s important to be aware of what we value” but adds “and what others value.” This creates an interesting dynamic that places our values at odds with others’ values instead of appealing to commonalities. Overall, the course could have appealed to shared values more often, perhaps even connecting them to an overarching narrative.

Another successful messaging technique is to include measurable goals. Fifteen screen captures (8%) included measurable goals or specific actions the users could take. In videos 6, 7, and 8, the narrators give specific examples of wording to shut down harmful language. This would allow students to measure prevention and to have action steps towards preventing sexual violence. It is worth noting, however, that some of the screen captures and videos which fell under this category, such as video 8, provided indirect goals. Video 8 provided students with the goal of non-confrontational intervention when a video character called out his friend for an insult against someone’s sexuality, but it didn’t give tangible strategies for intervening or a strong outcome other than the person apologizing with no change in future actions and words. The course gave tactics but didn’t have a strong call to action for students to implement these steps in their own lives.

The last two messaging variables analyzed if the messaging was empowering or negative. Empowering messaging on screen capture 137 stated, “If a friend discloses a harmful situation to you, you’re in a position to make a significant, positive impact on their recovery process.” Other screen captures included negative messaging that didn’t empower the user to act, such as on screen capture 70, which gave stereotypes people sometimes use but didn’t include positive language choices. By not including positive language choices, this screen capture focused on what users should not do without empowering them to speak in a more positive manner.

Overall, there were 26 screen captures (14%) with empowering messaging and 16 (9%) with negative messaging. While there was less negative messaging, an overwhelming number of screen captures fell into the neutral messaging category instead of negative messaging or the more effective empowering messaging.

In contrast, the New Zealand course did not use a lot of best messaging practices. Zero screen captures constructed a narrative and zero provided the audience with measurable prevention goals. Two screen captures did appeal to shared values; screen capture 1 highlighted the value of a safe community, and screen capture 7 refered to the value of responsibility. The course only had two screen captures that included empowering messaging, but six screen captures with negative messaging. An example of positive messaging was on screen capture seven: “Consent means to freely and voluntarily agree to a sexual activity.” On screen capture 8, there was an example of negative messaging, or telling the audience what not to do, “If someone is manipulated, threatened, or forced into sex, then they are not consenting.” While empowering messaging can help motivate the user to act, more negative messaging correlates to the audience focus on perpetrator prevention as it focuses on what users shouldn’t do to avoid violating someone’s rights or safety.

Because the New Zealand course focused on perpetrator prevention, there was more messaging that told users what not to do, or negative messaging. In contrast, bystander intervention tends to promote what users should do, so the US course had a lot more empowering or positive messaging—though both courses could have included more empowering messaging. Both courses lacked narrative construction, measurable goals around prevention, and appeals to shared values.

Addressed Levels of Prevention(Subcategory 4)

The fourth subcategory, levels of prevention, addressed if the specific language was geared as prevention on the individual, communal, or societal level (see Table 4). This category was determined based on the CDC’s levels of prevention recommendation (Dills & Brown, 2019). Researchers at the CDC recommend courses and materials that address sexual violence on all three levels. Svejkar et al. (2019) researched prevention programming at the different levels in Australia, as well, and found programs with more focus on the community and individual level were effective.

Table 4: Focus on different levels of prevention addressed in both courses

Variable	Definition	Example
Individual focused*	Content that focuses on what the individual can do to prevent or respond to sexual violence	The US course says, “you make decisions, set boundaries, and respect other people’s choices all the time”
Community focused*	Content geared towards what the local community, including university administration and groups of bystanders, can do to prevent or respond to sexual violence	The New Zealand course discusses how all members of the residential hall deserve to feel safe from sexual harassment and violence
Society focused*	Content geared towards creating a culture that supports sexual violence prevention or content about the actions of legal and governmental institutions	“Sometimes the media depicts romantic relationships as one person pursuing and finally convincing the other to engage in sexual activity” (from the US course)

Levels of Prevention Addressed in Both Courses

One-hundred-and-fifty-nine screen captures (90%) dealt with prevention on the individual level. For example, screen capture 46 focused on respect on the individual level: “We all want others to accept who we are and to treat us with respect. That’s why it’s so important to be respectful of other people’s values and uniqueness.” Screen capture 95 also dealt with preventing on the individual level, as it outlined consent as, “communicating what you do and what you don’t want, what is right for you, and what might make you feel comfortable is a normal, natural, and expected part of healthy communication.”

While the course focused on the individual level for the majority of the course, it also had significant chunks devoted to prevention on the community and societal level, with 99 (56%) and 44 (25%) screen captures respectively (note some screen captures dealt with prevention on multiple levels). Screen capture 150 stated, “It’s important to understand options for reporting incidents of violence, harassment, abuse, or sexual assault to our school.” This example, as well as many of the 99 community-focused screen captures, highlighted a school as a community. The course also focused on larger societal actions. Screen capture 47 discussed a similar topic to screen capture 150, but from the societal standpoint, “one of the ways that society or an institution promotes certain values is through laws and policies.” Overall, there was good representation of all three levels.

The New Zealand course overwhelmingly focused on prevention at the individual level. Twenty-one sentences across the 16 screen captures in the course dealt with prevention on the individual level, such as screen capture 2 which included this statement: “Sexual assault is when a person: forces you against your will to commit an act of indecency.” One screen capture included a community specific prevention, highlighting the residence halls: “All residents of Campus Living Villages are committed to providing a safe and inclusive environment.” Zero screen captures focused on society-focused prevention. Despite the uneven distribution, users might feel the most empowered to address sexual violence on the individual level.

The New Zealand course focused on the individual, ignoring the communal and societal level of prevention while the US course encompassed all levels of prevention, although over 150 screen captures did focus on individual prevention. While both courses could better adopt the CDC recommended model of confronting prevention at multiple levels, these courses are working in tandem with other measures. The CDC recommends in that same report that prevention should be scaffolded within a community; the communication design and rhetoric of prevention throughout the community instead of in one course could be a topic for future research.

Sentence Level Variables (Subcategory 5)

The fifth subcategory focused on syntax-level considerations, such as active voice, passive voice, hides verbs, doesn’t hide verbs, people-first language, not-people-first language, gives examples, gives analogies, and uses us vs. them language (see Table 5). Baker, Henriquez, and Hostler (2018) stress the importance of plain language that does not hide verbs and uses active voice for prevention programming.

Table 5: Sentence level variables addressed in both courses

Variable	Definition	Example
People-first language*	Language that values the person over the descriptor	The US describes, “people who experience sexual harassment…”
Not-people-first language	Language that values the descriptor over the person	In a different screen capture, the US course says, “survivors who identify as male”
Hides verbs	Language that does not highlight all verbs– commonly verbs are hidden in the -ing form or masked as nouns	“Think about approaching a conversation about consent as a simple, informal way of “checking in” with someone to make sure everyone is OK with what may happen” from the US course.
Doesn’t hide verbs	Language where all verbs are identifiable as verbs in a sentence	“Most of the time, we express ourselves naturally through a combination of words and actions…” from the US course.
Active voice *	When the subject performs the action of the sentence	“The person makes an unwelcome sexual advance” from the New Zealand course.
Passive voice	When the action of the sentence is performed on the subject	“It also means taking responsibility to ensure the person you are attached to is comfortable and agrees to go further” from the New Zealand course.
Gives examples*	The use of real world scenarios to support a point	The US course had a scenario where your roommate has a stalker and you have to respond to situation
Gives analogies	A comparison of two things that don’t appear similar on the surface	Neither course did this
Uses us vs. them language	Language that otherizes a particular group	“We’ll explore how to support survivors by listening, discussing reporting actions, connecting them with resources for additional support, and empowering them to make their own choices about their experience” from the US course.

Sentence-Level Choices in the US and New Zealand Courses

Two contrasting variables in this subcategory were people-first and not-people-first language. There were 19 examples of not- people-first language and 22 examples of people-first language. On screen capture 134, the course referred to LGBTQ survivors, which was not people-first as it stressed their identity within the LGBTQ community and role as a survivor instead of saying people who are LGBTQ survivors. On the other hand, screen capture 73 discussed “people who experience sexual harassment”, which is people-first language. While there were more examples of people- first language, the number of screen captures that used people-first language and the ones which didn’t were close, signaling the course could have worked on being more consistent in the use of people- first language.

Another interesting variable to look at is the use of active and passive voice. One-hundred-and-eighty-nine sentences of the 175 screen captures used active voice, and 157 sentences used passive voice (with some screen captures using both as this variable was counted on a sentence level). Active voice examples included the phrase “most of the time, we express ourselves naturally through a combination of words and actions…” on screen capture 96 and “everyone deserves to live, learn, and work in a safe environment” on screen capture 128. Passive voice examples were more likely to be related to heavier subjects, such as reporting sexual violence and abusive relationships. Examples include “However, it’s important to be able to recognize when relationships are abusive and conflict with our fundamental values…” on screen capture 66 and “It’s important to understand options for reporting incidents of violence, harassment, abuse, or sexual assault to our school” on screen capture 150.

The variables of hiding verbs or not hiding verbs related to active voice and passive voice as usually passive voice hides verbs and active voice doesn’t hide verbs. Two-hundred-and-nine sentences over all the screen captures hid verbs, and 129 sentences didn’t, signaling that sometimes even sentences which used active voice hid verbs. Screen capture 55 gives an example of a sentence which doesn’t hide verbs: “emotional abuse and isolation undermines the values of…” because the verbs are all clear and easy to find. When the course hid verbs, it clouded the meaning of the sentence. Screen capture 95 is a good example of this: “Communicating what you do and what you don’t want, what is right for you, and what might make you feel comfortable is a normal, natural, and expected part of healthy communication.” The sentence includes many hidden verbs, which creates a lack of focus on one particular action in the sentence. Hiding verbs was one of the biggest hindrances at the sentence level of the US course.

One of the most effective sentence types in prevention courses are those which give examples so the user can see how to apply course material to their own lives. There were 121 examples within the course, such as the example of someone catcalling a friend, Tiana, on screen captures 78 and 79. While the example is easy to follow and used “you” to include the user in the example, there was not a resolution. It ends by asking the user what they would do, but it didn’t give any options or say what ended up happening with Tiana or the boy who catcalled her. Most of the other examples in the course constructed potentially effective learning situations but didn’t have resolutions or tangible steps users could take. Another useful sentence-level strategy for sexual violence prevention is analogies, but the course did not use any analogies.

One variable I wasn’t expecting to find was us versus them language. This language can otherize populations and is not helpful in courses on sensitive topics, such as sexual violence. In the 22 screen captures that used this language, the us versus them language separated “us” from survivors, ostracizing survivors as a different category than the users. On screen capture 157 the course used this tactic, “understanding a survivor’s experience can help you to be a more empathetic listener and friend.” While there were only 22 examples of this, it can be harmful and should be avoided at all costs in similar courses.

The New Zealand course included more examples of active voice. Fourteen sentences over all screen captures included active voice, such as this sentence on screen capture one: “Sexual assault covers a range of different types of assault.” Ten screen captures included passive voice, such as screen capture 3: “In circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all circumstances, would have anticipated that the person harassed would have been offended, humiliated, or intimidated.”

Similarly, 10 examples hid verbs, while 12 didn’t hide verbs with a correlation between active voice and not hiding verbs, as would be expected. Screen capture 7 hid verbs and used passive voice: “It (consent) also means taking responsibility to ensure that the person you are attracted to is comfortable and agrees to go further.” In contrast, screen capture 3, did not hide verbs and used active voice: “A person sexually harasses another person if the person makes an unwelcome sexual advance, or an unwelcome request for sexual favours, to the person harassed or engages in other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the person harassed.” While more examples of active voice and not hiding verbs were present, more active voice or sentences that didn’t hide verbs could be included.

The New Zealand course utilized only people-first language. Four screen captures included this sort of language, and there were zero with not-people-first language. An example of people-first language was this sentence on screen capture 1: “Sexual assault occurs when a person indecently assaults another person.”

Over half of all screen captures included examples. Almost all were in comics included in the course, allowing the users to read and see a visual of the examples. This course included zero analogies, but it included three examples of us versus them language. The us versus them language in the course usually treated the “us” as potential perpetrators and the “them” as survivors, such as this sentence on screen capture 8: “If they are so intoxicated that they don’t know what is going on, then they are not consenting.” Overall, the New Zealand course paid attention to intentional, active, and people-first sentence level choices.

The courses relied on different language practices to get their messages across. The New Zealand course relied on active, people- first language that didn’t hide verbs. It used language, such as, “Sexual assault occurs when a person indecently assaults another person.” In contrast, the US course hid more verbs and tended to use passive language. This made some of the language of the course confusing and muddled. It’s best to use active language with the verbs in plain sight. The US course also referred to people as victims and perpetrators instead of people who commit sexual assault or people who are survivors. The language in the New Zealand course offered a more clear, humanistic view of prevention and was easier to read. This might be due to increased confidence around this topic within New Zealand society whereas in the US, sexual violence prevention is a more difficult topic to discuss. Regardless of the confidence levels in the larger societies, it would be better for courses in either culture to utilize language choices that reflect clarity, such as using active voice and not hiding verbs.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE DESIGN

The comparative rhetorical analysis points to two key differences between the New Zealand course and the US course. The first key difference is the language used, with New Zealand using more active voice and less hiding verbs; and the US using language that lacked clarity, such as passive voice and hiding verbs. New Zealand is known for more effective prevention than the US, and active voice and not hiding verbs are known to be more effective in general. This suggests that using clear language with an active, confident tone might improve the effectiveness of sexual violence prevention courses.

The second key difference between the courses was that the US course followed the basic recommendations for higher-level rhetorical concerns; it addressed the users as bystanders, included more empowering messaging, and addressed prevention at the individual-, community-, and societal- levels. On the other hand, the New Zealand course addressed the audience as potential perpetrators, included more negative messaging, and addressed prevention at the individual-level, with only one instance of community-level prevention. When paired with the knowledge that New Zealand’s prevention is more effective, this might suggest that language-level concerns impact the effectiveness of courses more than higher level concerns focused on messaging and how prevention is addressed. However, it still is important to consider both higher-level and lower-level concerns around prevention communication.

In order to incorporate both higher-level and lower-level best practices, the most effective rhetorical practices might be to:

• Use active voice and sentence structures that don’t hide verbs.
• Make sure the language of courses is clear and confident.
• Pay attention to the language decisions, as they might determine the effectiveness of the course more than larger order rhetorical issues.
• Ensure that the tone of a prevention course conveys the importance of the topic.
• Address the audience as potential bystanders whenever possible.
• Integrate empowering messaging into prevention courses.
• Emphasize the feasibility of the prevention education, highlighting how prevention is possible.
• Integrate a narrative throughout the course to which students can connect.
• Be intentional with decisions made in all five subcategories, as all of them contribute to the feasibility and clarity of the course.

Future research might strengthen these findings by focusing on one or two specific subcategories of rhetorical considerations. It also could be interesting to compare and contrast data collected from New Zealand and US university students to see how students perceive prevention course material and maybe even prevention courses from the other country. A prevention course is only one part of a larger scaffolded prevention plan within a community; so, in the future, more research could be done to compare and contrast the rhetoric and communication in other facets of New Zealand and US prevention. While some research was done on the larger rhetorical context, it might be beneficial to dive deeper into the legal and public perception differences around sexual violence in both countries.

Overall, this research points to the need to focus on multiple rhetorical considerations instead of one category of considerations. To create an effective prevention course, developers must consider their audience and effective messaging strategies and approaches while also paying attention to sentence-level rhetorical choices. Paying attention to rhetorical considerations in sexual violence prevention courses could have a direct impact on the effectiveness not only of these courses, but on the safety of college campuses in the US, New Zealand, and beyond.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I’d like to thank Dr. Jessie Moore for her mentorship and support throughout this research project. I’d also like to thank the Lumen Fellowship and Honors Program at Elon University.

REFERENCES

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.

Anderson, L. A., & Whiston, S. C. (2005). Sexual assault education programs: A meta-analytic examination of their effectiveness. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(4), 374–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00237.x

Baker, K., Henriquez, S. & Hostler, M.J. (2018). Where we’re going and where we’ve been: Making the case for preventing sexual violence. Reliance and Berkeley Media Studies Group.

Breitenbecher, K.H. and Scarce, M. (2001). An evaluation of the effectiveness of a sexual assault education program Focusing on psychological barriers to resistance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(5), 387–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626001016005001

Choate, L. H., et. al (2003). Sexual assault prevention programs for college men: An exploratory evaluation of the men against violence model. Journal of College Counseling, 6(2), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2003.tb00237.x

Croom, K., et. al (2009). Impact of an online alcohol education course on behavior and harm for incoming first-year college students: Short-term evaluation of a randomized trial. Journal of American College Health, 57(4), 445–454. https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.57.4.445-454

Dills J.K. & Brown P. (2019). Continuing the dialogue: Learning from the past and looking to the future of intimate partner violence and sexual violence prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Edenfield, A. C. (2019). Queering consent: Design and sexual consent messaging. Communication Design Quarterly Review, 7(2), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1145/3358931.3358938

Gold, J., Lim, M. S., Hellard, M. E., Hocking, J. S., & Keogh, L. (2010). What’s in a message? Delivering sexual health promotion to young people in Australia via text messaging. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-792

Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance? Computers & Eductation, 95, 270–284.

Julich, S. J., Oak, E., Terrell, J., & Good, G. (2015). The sustainable delivery of sexual violence prevention education in schools. Massey University.

Kleinsasser, A., Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., & Rosenfield, D. (2015). An online bystander intervention program for the prevention of sexual violence. Psychology of violence, 5(3), 227.

Potts, L. (2009). Using Actor Network Theory to trace and improve multimodal communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18(3), 281–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572250902941812

Orchowski, L. M., Berkowitz, A., Boggis, J., & Oesterle, D. (2016). Bystander intervention among college men: The role of alcohol and correlates of sexual aggression. Journal of interpersonal violence, 31(17), 2824–2846. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515581904

Rich, M. D., et al. (2010). I’d rather be doing something else: Male resistance to rape prevention programs. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 18(3), 268–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515581904

Salvo, M. J. (2001). Ethics of engagement: User-centered design and rhetorical methodology. Technical Communication Quarterly, 10(3), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427625tcq1003_3

Svejkar, D., et al. (2019). Using design to generate change: Harnessing the student voice to prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment. Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Student Services Association, 27(1), 29–44. https://doi.org.10.30688/janzssa.2019.04

Vladutiu, C. J., Martin, S. L., & Macy, R. J. (2011). College-or university-based sexual assault prevention programs: A review of program outcomes, characteristics, and recommendations. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 12(2), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838010390708

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Angela Myers graduated with a Bachelor of the Arts in Professional Writing and Rhetoric from Elon University in May 2021. During her time at Elon, she conducted a two-year long research thesis on the rhetoric of sexual violence prevention.