Self-Defense Training vs Traditional Martial Arts- Related to Sexual Victimization

Is Self-Defense Training Better Than Traditional Martial arts Training? Yes, this study concludes.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235782815

 

Sport, Exercise, and Performance

Psychology

Self-Defense Training and Traditional Martial Arts:

Influences on Self-Efficacy and Fear Related to Sexual

Victimization

 

Kimberly Ball and Jeffrey Martin

 

Online First Publication, November 14, 2011. DOI: 10.1037/a0025745

CITATION

Ball, K., & Martin, J. (2011, November 14). Self-Defense Training and Traditional Martial Arts:

Influences on Self-Efficacy and Fear Related to Sexual Victimization. Sport, Exercise, and

Performance Psychology. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1037/a0025745

14 Nov 2012
 

DOI: 10.1037/a0025745

 

The purpose of this study was to examine if traditional martial arts (TMA) and modern self-defense training (MSDT), relative to a stress-management comparison program, were equally effective in altering both multidimensional self-efficacy and fear in relation to sexual victimization. Participants in the MSDT group (mean [M] 3.9) had significant and meaningful test reductions ( p .02) in life-threatening fear relative to the comparison group (M 4.4) and had significantly higher (M 8.1) scores than the comparison group (M 6.4) in self-defense self-efficacy. There were no differences in other forms of self-efficacy (i.e., interpersonal self-efficacy) or fear (i.e., fear of being alone). These results provided some support for the value of MSDT interventions in helping women become more confident and less fearful of sexual victimization.

 

“Experiencing violence transforms people into victims and changes their lives forever. Once victimized one can never feel quite as invulnerable” (Koss, 1990, p. 374).

 

As this quote illustrates, sexual assault can profoundly influence the lives of women. According to the victimization surveys conducted by the U. S. Department of Justice (United States Department of Justice, [USDJ], 2005), for every 1,000 persons 12 years of age or older, there occurred one rape or sexual assault, two assaults with injury, and two robberies. About one-fifth of the women surveyed by the USDJ (2005) reported being raped at some time in their lives. Further, 1.9% of the surveyed women reported being raped, physically assaulted, or both in the previous 12 months. This equates to an estimated 1.9 million U.S. women who are raped and/or physically assaulted annually. It is also virtually impossible to estimate the numerous times women remain silent about being sexually assaulted.

 

The risk for sexual assault and rape for women has been examined extensively. However, few researchers have conducted intervention studies examining if courses designed to teach self-defense skills, such as rape prevention programs or martial arts classes, are effective in reducing fear of attack and increasing self-efficacy to avoid or fight against an assault. Most women take self-defense classes in order to become more confident and reduce fear (Hollander, 2010). Researchers typically evaluate modern self-defense training (MSDT) programs against a control or comparison group (e.g., Gidycz, Rich, Orchowski, King, & Miller, 2006). The primary goal of MSDT programs is to teach participants how to avoid and resist sexual assault. Traditional martial arts (TMA), boxing, and wrestling skills are typically taught, as well as preventative skills (e.g., awareness of surroundings; Angleman, Shinzato, Van Hasselt, & Russo, 2009). However, according to Angleman et al. (2009), no researchers have compared MSDT programs against more TMA programs, such as karate. Angleman et al. (2009) suggest that the lack of research comparing both types of programs is partially grounded in the misconception that TMA programs are ineffective for self-defense purposes. Contrary to this misconception, karate, one type of TMA, is geared toward both fighting and tactics that can be used for escaping assault. In general, a lack of research comparing different types of self-defense programs has been noted as a research limitation (Brecklin, 2008). Evaluating the effectiveness of TMA versus MSDT programs in reducing fear and enhancing efficacy would provide more information to program developers and potential participants on the relative merits of each type of program.

 

Social-Cognitive Theory (SCT: Bandura, 1977, Bandura, 1990, Bandura, 1995) guided the current study. According to Bandura (1990) people’s behavior, the environment, and cognitions/ emotions all exert reciprocal influences on each other. For example, an instructor of an MSDT program may teach a woman new skills for self-protection (behavior), which leads to enhanced self-defense self-efficacy (cognitive), resulting in changes as to where she feels comfortable (environment). Conversely, a woman may feel that her environment is unsafe, which leads to fear (emotion) and a lack of efficacy (cognition). In turn, some women may choose to improve their self-protective skills (behavior) by taking a self-defense class. In both examples, the triadic relationships among cognition/ emotion, behavior, and the environment are evident.

 

SCT puts a strong emphasis on one particular type of cognition, self-efficacy, which is “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1977; p. 3). The situation-specific nature of self-efficacy lends itself to a multidimensional perspective. Thus, in the current study, self-efficacy was conceptualized and assessed as self-efficacy for preventing and dealing with sexual victimization.

 

In one of the few studies examining self-efficacy and sexual assault, Ozer and Bandura (1990) assessed participants’ interpersonal self-efficacy, activities self-efficacy, self-defense efficacy, and cognitive control self-efficacy. Self-defense self-efficacy reflects a person’s perception of their ability to ward off an assault whereas interpersonal self-efficacy is indicative of a women’s perception of her ability to be assertive in sexual situations. For instance, telling a date “no” when he makes sexual advances. Finally, activities efficacy is the efficacy a person feels in engaging in activities that are often avoided for fear of a sexual assault. All three forms of self-efficacy are thought to be malleable and should increase as a result of mastery experiences, persuasive communication, and role modeling that are typically employed in both TMA and MSDT programs.

 

Ozer and Bandura (1990) also assessed negative thoughts about sexual assault (frequency), perceived vulnerability to sexual assault, perceived risk of sexual assault (in society at large), and participants' ability to discern safe and risky situations. They found that a mastery modeling intervention program enhanced perceived coping and cognitive control efficacy, decreased perceived vulnerability to assault, and reduced the incidence of intrusive negative thinking and anxiety arousal in the participants. Participants also indicated that they felt “increased freedom of action and decreased avoidant behavior” (p. 472).

 

Other researchers have also investigated the influence of self-defense training programs using similar measures. For instance, Weitlauf, Cervone, Smith, and Wright (2001) hypothesized that a self-defense course intervention would facilitate a generalization of efficacy effects into other life domains. The 49 college women enrolled in a voluntary self-defense course that used karate, at a large urban university viewed themselves as more capable to discern danger, discourage an assault, cope with their emotional state if they were assaulted, and physically defend themselves against assault. In a study examining 12 female veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder, David and colleagues found increases in interpersonal, activities, and self-defense efficacy and reductions in fear after a 12-week intervention program (David, Simpson, & Cotton, 2006).

 

Hollander (2004) found that women in two feminist self-defense classes learned strategies to keep themselves safe and they developed more effective responses to potentially dangerous situations. For example, the participants reported that they used more commonsense precautions, such as locking the doors more often or avoiding walking alone at night whenever possible. Shim (1998) also investigated the effects of a self-defense program, Model Mugging of Boston, on women’s physical self-efficacy, positive and negative feelings about body image, and fear-motivated avoidance behavior. Participants in the program experienced reductions in the symptoms of anxiety, depression, and phobic behaviors at the end of the training and 6 months later. Additionally, Shim’s (1998) study replicated Ozer and Bandura’s (1990) findings regarding women’s positive changes in self-efficacy. Moreover, participants’ self-efficacy gains were maintained at a 6-month follow-up period. Finally, Hinkelman (2004) examined the effects of a 10-week  self-defense course and found that women who completed self-defense training (n 68) had higher levels of assertiveness, activities self-efficacy, self-defense self-efficacy, and interpersonal self-efficacy than women who had not participated in the training. In summary, the limited research on both efficacy and self-defense training shows that the benefits of self-defense classes extend beyond the simple attainment of physical skills. Participants in self-defense courses experience an increase in self-efficacy in their ability to protect themselves (Hollander, 2004; Madden, 1990; Madden, 1995; Ozer & Bandura, 1990; Weitlauf et al., 2001).

 

In contrast to self-efficacy, research on self-defense and multidimensional fear is far less developed. For instance, to our knowledge, no intervention research examining how programs may influence multidimensional fear has been conducted. Scale development research by Hughes, Marshall, and Sherrill (2003) and Hughes, Sherrill, Myers, Rowe, and Marshall (2003) has confirmed the validity of assessing fear from a multidimensional perspective, such as fear of being alone and fear of being vulnerable to strangers. Furthermore, they specifically developed the instrument used in the current study to evaluate MSDT and TMA programs. Hence, we examined multidimensional fear and hypothesized the both MSDT and TMA would reduce fear.

 

Finally, we also addressed weaknesses in previous research related to social desirability, victimization history, and age. Failure to measure social desirability (only 1 of 20 studies) in self-defense training research has been a weakness (Brecklin, 2008) as some women may be reluctant to admit sexual victimization. Similarly, most researchers have not assessed victimization history and that failure has been a traditional shortcoming in this type of research as it may influence self-defense training outcomes (Brecklin, 2008). Most rape-defense program research has been conducted with women attending college and as a result, has focused on younger (e.g., 18–22 years old) women. Therefore, we examined older female students (e.g., 25–35 years) that were more representative of women from the general community, as recommended by Brecklin (2008).

 

To summarize, few researchers have examined if TMA and MSDT are equally effective in altering both self-efficacy and fear. Hence, the purpose of the current study was to evaluate both TMA and MSDT against a comparison group (i.e., stress management class) on important psychological constructs (i.e., self-efficacy and fear) with older female students, while controlling for social desirability and victimization history.

 

We examined three important forms of self-efficacy and hypothesized they would all increase. However, because self-defense is the singular goal of MSDT, and an important goal of TMA, we expected self-defense efficacy to increase the most. We expected moderate increases in interpersonal self-efficacy for MSDT, because learning how to be assertive in interpersonal sexual situations to avoid sexual assault is consistent with MSDT. For TMA we expected smaller increases in interpersonal self-efficacy because learning interpersonal skills is not a major goal of TMA. Finally, we anticipated the smallest increases, and therefore smaller effect sizes, for activities self-efficacy because enhancing activities self-efficacy is not a major goal of either TMA or MSDT, but might occur as a function of enhanced self-defense self-efficacy generalizing to activities self-efficacy.

 

Finally, paralleling differential gains in efficacy, we also hypothesized varied reductions in the five forms of fear, although this portion of the study, relative to self-efficacy, was more exploratory in nature. We expected the largest reductions in life-threatening fear because both TMA and MSDT programs focus more strongly on defending one’s life as compared with, for example, reducing fear of theft. By extension, we also expected to see a fear of being alone and of stranger vulnerability to be reduced as logical outcomes of feeling more efficacious in one’s self-defense skills. We expected general fear to be reduced the least given its broader and more generic formulation.

 

Method
Participants Women (N 69) ranged in age from 18 to 61 years (mean [M] 26.3; standard deviation [SD] 10.1) and most participants were Caucasian (72.5%), African American (13%), or other (14.5%).

Sampling
Participants were a convenience sample of students at a Midwestern university who signed up for regularly scheduled intact one credit university courses in self-defense (MSDT), karate (TMA) or stress management (SM), and then agreed to be in the current study. MSDT participants came from four sections of classes taught by the same instructor. TMA students came from two sections of classes taught by the same instructor. Students from the SM group were all from one section. The initial sample size (N  87) represented all students registered for all three classes. The final study sample (N 69) as a result of 18 women dropping out of school completely, dropping the course they were enrolled in, or refusing to complete the posttest. Dropout by the group was as follows: MSDT (n 6), TMA (n 5), and SM (n 7). The final group composition was as follows: MSDT (n 32), TMA (n 10), and the SM comparison group (n 27).

 

Sample Size and Power

Power analysis to determine sample size was conducted prior with G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). Using a medium effect size of .30, with p .10, and power .90, a total sample of 68 was required.

Group Descriptions

All groups were taught by instructors with no connection to the current research and study authors were not involved in the program delivery. Each group met once a week for 2 hr, over an 8-week course, resulting in 16 contact hours. The MSDT course was specifically designed to teach women skills to avoid sexual assault and to fight back if an assault occurred. Physical skills such as palm, elbow, and knee strikes, kicks to shins, and eye gouges were taught through impact training, skill integration, and simulated combat. Lectures were used to teach mental preparation and awareness, threat recognition, assessment and decision making, survival stress, and self-defense, and the law. The final class was a simulated attack by a padded assailant.

 

The TMA class instructor taught Shotokan Karate which is designed to focus on the total development of the student (i.e., physical, mental, social, and spiritual growth). Conditioning, fitness, self-discipline, concentration, self-defense, and competition were emphasized. Blocking, punching, striking, kicking, and body-shifting techniques in a correct stance were also taught. Techniques were learned and applied with fellow students who acted as opponents. The comparison class was a stress management course where students learned about the physiological and psychological aspects of stress, and how to recognize and manage stress. Concepts were taught through readings, lectures, student interactions, progressive relaxation, yoga, and journal writing.

 

Instruments

Multidimensional Self-Efficacy

 

Self-efficacy was measured using Ozer and Bandura’s (1990) multidimensional self-efficacy scales designed to assess perceived coping capabilities in three domains:  self-defense self-efficacy, activities self-efficacy, and interpersonal self-efficacy. Each item in each scale required participants to rate the strength of their perceived self-efficacy to engage in a specific coping mechanism using a scale ranging from (0) complete uncertainty to (10) complete certitude. The strength of self-efficacy was then computed by summing the total and dividing by the number of items. Scores ranged from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating stronger self-efficacy.

 

Self-defense self-efficacy was assessed with 12 items; an example question is “How confident are you that you can, as of now: After striking with your elbow, turn your body and strike to his eyes.” Activities self-efficacy was assessed with 20 items with an example question being, “How confident are you that you can, as of now: Ride your bike alone to an evening lecture.” Interpersonal self-efficacy was assessed with 12 items and an example question was, “In a dating situation, how confident are you that you can, as of now, tell a date that you have invited into your house that you are ready for him to leave.” Ozer and Bandura (1990) established convergence, divergent, and factorial validity. Internal consistency reliability was acceptable ( .88 to .97; Cronbach, 1951).

 

Multidimensional Fear Scale

 

The multidimensional fear scale of the Perceptions of Dangerous Situations Scale (PDSS; Hughes, Sherrill, et al., 2003) was used in the current study to measure five specific types of fear. Women responded to 37 questions about dangerous situations by assessing how fearful they were in each situation. The five subscale labels, numbers of items, and example questions are as follows: life-threatening fear (15 items; “Being raped by a stranger”), general fear (eight items; “Receiving an obscene phone call”), stranger vulnerability fear (six items; “Being exposed to an angry driver”), fear of theft (five items; “Having your purse or wallet stolen”), and fear of being alone (three items; “Running or walking alone”). Each item was rated with a Likert-type scale with 1 being almost none, and 5 representing almost complete. Hughes, Sherrill, Myers, & Rowe (2003) established construct validity for their sample via factor analysis, and scores also produced adequate reliability estimates.

 

Sexual Victimization and Assault

 

We used the 17-item Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Abbey, BeShears, Clinton–Sherrod, & McAusian, 2004; Koss & Oros, 1982; Koss & Gidycz, 1985; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987). The SES consists of 17 questions that refer to sexual experiences involving various degrees of coercion, threat, and force. For example, one question read, “How many times have you had sexual contact (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse) when you indicated that you didn’t want to because a man used continual arguments and pressure to make you?” Scoring is from 0 to 5 with 0 indicating “never,” 1 indicating “once,” 2 indicating “twice,” 3 indicating “three times,” 4 indicating “four times,” and 5 indicating “five or more times.” The history of validity and reliability produced with scores from prior samples is well established (Abbey et al., 2004; Koss et al., 1987; Koss & Gidycz, 1985). Participants were classified into one of five categories, according to the least-to-most-serious victimization experienced: (1) no sexual victimization, (2) sexual contact only, (3) verbally coercive strategy used to obtain penetrative sex, (4) attempted rape, and (5) completed rape (penetrative sex achieved through physical force or when a victim was unable to consent; Koss et al., 2007).

 

Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale (SDS)

 

We used the 13-item short-form (M-C Form C) of the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Reynolds, 1982). Questions are scored 0 or 1 for true or false answers. An example question is “I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget.” Final scores range from 0 to 13. The SDS has produced adequate reliability and validity with previous samples (Reynolds, 1982).

 

Procedures

 

We received permission from Wayne State University’s Internal Review Board (IRB), the community college’s IRB where classes were held, course instructors, and the participants to conduct our study. Participants were informed that their participation in the study would have no bearing on their grades and that their responses would be confidential and anonymous. They were informed of their right to decline participation in the study and that they could choose not to participate in answering the questions during the survey made them uncomfortable. Participants completed all questionnaires during the 1st and 8th weeks of class and the first author collected all data.

 

Results

 

Data Screening

 

Data were examined (i.e., descriptive, boxplots, etc.) for missing, incorrectly coded data, and high

 

Table 1
Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for Dependent Measures

Univariate	F	Significance	Partial n2
SDSE	14.13	.001	.33
ISE	1.57	.218	.05
ASE	.973	.384	.03
G-F	.36	.699	.01
Alone	.19	.829	.01
Theft	.78	.465	.03
S-V	.30	.743	.01
L-T	4.93	.01	.15
Note. SDSE self-defense self-efficacy; ISE interpersonal self-efficacy; ASE activities self-efficacy; G-F general fear; Alone fear of being alone; Theft fear of theft; S-V stranger vulnerability; L-T life-threatening fear. Multivariate F(16, 104) 2.22, p  .008 generated from Pillai’s statistic. Univariate df  (2,58).

 

(i.e., upper quartile) SDS scores, prior to analyses. A mean substitution was used for three data points with three different participants. No participants scored in the upper quartile of the SDS and had to be deleted. All dependent variables met normality (e.g., skewness, kurtosis) criteria (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

 

Preliminary Analyses

 

Internal consistency (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha; Cronbach, 1951) for all self-efficacy (.80 to .98) and fear ( .67 to .96) subscales was adequate. Similarly, test-retest reliabilities (interclass correlations) from pretest to posttest (r .46 to .90.) were all significant ( p .05). Nineteen women reported no sexual victimization, five reported sexual contact only, and 16 indicated that verbally coercive strategies were used to obtain penetrative sex. Finally, four (6%) reported experiencing attempted rape and 25 (36%) reported being raped.

 

Brecklin (2008) suggested that a women’s victimization history may determine if she signs up for a self-defense program, which in turn may influence program outcomes. Hence, we conducted a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) on the 17 SES questions by group (i.e., MSDT, TMA, and SM) and found no significant differences [F(34, 102) .96, p  .544] among groups. As a result, we concluded that the groups had comparable sexual victimization histories. Finally, we conducted a second MANOVA comparing if the 18 women who did not complete the posttest differed from the 69 women completing both pre-and post-tests on the 17 pretest sexual victimization history questions and there were no significant differences [F(17, 69) .265, p .998].

 

Main Analyses

 

Assumptions for multivariate analyses were met as observations were independent and Box’s test of the equality of covariance matrices was not significant (Box’s

Table 2

Means Scores on Eight Dependent Measures at Pretest and Posttest and Post Hoc Tests

Groups
	MSDT		TMA		Comparison
	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post
Variable	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
SDSE	5.2 (2.6)	8.1 (1.6)	6.1 (2.3)	7.7 (1.1)	5.9 (2.1)	6.4 (2.3)
ISE	7.2 (1.3)	8.2 (1.3)	7.1 (1.3)	7.8 (1.4)	7.1 (1.7)	7.6 (1.4)
ASE	4.1 (1.5)	4.4 (2.1)	3.4 (1.1)	4.7 (2.4)	4.3 (1.8)	4.3 (1.6)
G-F	2.3 (0.8)	2.2 (1.0)	2.4 (0.9)	2.4 (0.9)	2.7 (0.7)	2.7 (0.8)
Alone	2.4 (1.0)	2.3 (1.1)	2.8 (0.9)	2.4 (0.9)	2.6 (0.9)	2.5 (0.9)
Theft	3.0 (0.9)	2.9 (1.1)	3.2 (1.3)	3.3 (1.3)	3.2 (1.0)	3.4 (0.8)
S-V	2.6 (1.0)	2.6 (1.0)	3.0 (1.0)	2.6 (1.2)	2.9 (0.8)	2.8 (0.7)
L-T	4.2 (0.7)	3.9 (0.8)	3.7 (1.1)	3.6 (1.3)	.3 (0.8)	4.4 (0.6)
Note. SDSE=self-defense self-efficacy; ISE=interpersonal self-efficacy; ASE=activities self-efficacy; G-F=general fear; Alone=fear of being alone; Theft=fear of theft; S-V=stranger vulnerability; L-T=life threatening fear; MSDT=modern self-defense training; TMA=traditional martial arts. *Significant differences between means at posttest.

 

M 91.61, F(72, 2381.88) .94, p .63). Additionally, Levene’s test of equality of error variances was also not significant for seven of eight dependent variables, indicating error variances were similar.

 

We then conducted a multivariate analysis of covariance examining the posttest means using pretest scores as covariates. Pillai’s Trace was significant, F(16, 104) 2.22, p .008, 2  .26, warranting follow-up tests to determine on which of the eight dependent variables, at posttest, the three groups differed. There were significant differences in self-defense self-efficacy, F(2, 58) 14.13, p .001, 2 .33, and life-threatening fear, F(2, 58) 4.93, p .01, 2 .15 (see Table 1).

 

To determine which of the three groups was significantly different from the other two groups in self-defense self-efficacy and life-threatening fear we examined pair-wise comparison post hoc tests. The MSDT group (M 8.1; Cohen’s d  .87) was significantly higher than the comparison group (M 6.4) in self-defense self-efficacy (mean difference 1.94, p .001). The MSDT group (M 3.9; Cohen’s d .714) was significantly lower than the comparison group (M 4.4) in life-threatening fear (mean difference .50, p .01). No other pairwise comparisons were significant (see Table 2).

 

Discussion

 

The purpose of the current study was to compare the effectiveness of TMA and MSDT programs in enhancing multidimensional self-efficacy and in reducing multidimensional fear. The number of women in our study reporting an attempted (6%) or completed (36%) rape is substantially higher (42%) than previous reports (e.g., 17–20%) of attempted and completed rape against women (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1999; USDJ, 2005) and supports the rationale and value of the current study. Few if any researchers have examined both MSDT and TMA programs jointly to determine their relative effectiveness on enhancing both positive cognitions (i.e., efficacy) and negative emotions (i.e., fear). Before proceeding to a discussion of our major findings, we briefly comment on some non-statistical observations of interest.

 

The pattern of descriptive scores across all three groups for both testing times was suggestive of low-to-moderate activity self-efficacy (M 4), followed by self-defense self-efficacy (M 5–6), and interpersonal self-efficacy (M 7–8). Similarly, for fear, most means hovered slightly below (e.g., fear of being alone) or above (e.g., fear of theft) the midpoint of the scale. In general, the pretest scores were higher than participants in studies also examining all three forms of efficacy (David, Simpson, & Cotton, 2006; Ozer & Bandura, 1990). It is plausible that our participants were higher at pretest than David et al. (2006) because their participants were 12 female veterans diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (David et al., 2006). It is not clear why our participants were higher than those in the Ozer and Bandura (1990) study who were, on average, older women. It should be noted that after a comprehensive intervention program, participants in the David et al. (2006) study increased substantially to levels almost comparable to posttest scores in the current study for the MSDT group.

 

A visual examination of the mean scores for all three types of self-efficacy, for both MSDT and TMA groups, changed in the expected directions (i.e., increased) from pre- to post-testing time periods. In contrast, fear scores mostly remained stable for both MSDT and TMA groups with the exception of life-threatening fear. Most pre- to post-test means for the comparison group were relatively stable.

 

Based on our statistical analyses only two hypotheses were supported. Participants in the MSDT group experienced substantial increases in self-defense self-efficacy and reductions in life-threatening fear, relative to the comparison group, with Cohen’s d effect sizes of .84 and .71. Effect sizes can be interpreted in three ways. First, relative to Cohen’s guidelines (i.e., .2 to .3 small; .5 medium; .8 large), both effect sizes constitute moderate effects. Second, a more meaningful interpretation involves comparing effect sizes to similar research (Thompson, 2009). Third, and most importantly, effect sizes should be interpreted within substantive theoretical and practical considerations. Given the lack of research examining fear with the PDSS, it is impossible to compare our findings to other research. The moderate effect size, however, suggests that the MSDT group made a substantial impact on women’s quality of life by reducing life-threatening fear. The MSDT group was significantly lower in fear, as compared with the comparison group. It is important to note that these findings suggest that MSDT was superior to TMA, as no differences between the TMA and comparison group were found on life-threatening fear.

 

We next compared the self-efficacy finding in light of prior self-defense research that also used the same self-efficacy scales. Hinkleman (2004) also examined a university 10-week, 20-hr long self-defense course and found participants increased in self-defense self-efficacy with a large effect size (i.e., Cohen’s d 2.73). Similarly, Ozer and Bandura (1990) examined a 5-week-long SDT program and multidimensional self-efficacy with a total contact time of 22.5 hours. They reported an increase from pre (based on an average of both pretest M and SDs) to posttest self-defense self-efficacy, with an accompanying large effect size (i.e., Cohen’s d 5.05). Weitlauf et al. (2001) examined the influence of a self-defense program and an enhanced self-defense program (i.e., 30 extra minutes a week) on self-defense self-efficacy and found large (i.e., Cohen’s d 2.58 & 2.54) effect sizes. Finally, Gidycz et al. (2006) found a small effect size (Cohen’s d .27), which may reflect the shorter duration of their self-defense program (i.e., 7 hours total). A major purpose of self-defense courses (as well as martial arts classes) is to help participants master self-defense skills. Hence, the accompanying increases in self-efficacy perceptions in the current study support SCT tenants and the effectiveness of MSDT in enhancing self-efficacy.

 

We believe our study is the first to document the life-threatening fear-reduction benefits of MSDT programs. Given the similarity between fear and anxiety, and the reciprocal relationship between self-efficacy and anxiety, the finding that fear was reduced is consistent with SCT. We also anticipated that self-defense skill development in both TMA and MSDT would not only enhance self-defense self-efficacy and reduce fear but that conceptually similar efficacy cognitions would also be affected. However, neither activities nor interpersonal self-efficacy was enhanced with either TMA or MSDT. It may simply be that for our study participants enhanced self-defense self-efficacy cognitions did not generalize to related self-efficacy domains (e.g., interpersonal self-efficacy). Additionally, the MSDT program's primary mission is to prevent or avoid sexual assault and develop self-defense skills in case an attack occurs. This very reasonable priority may result in limited attention to class content that is more commensurate with concepts taped by questions on the interpersonal and activities self-efficacy scales, relative to content taped by the self-defense self-efficacy scale items.

 

Furthermore, in regard to activities self-efficacy, although women may certainly choose to limit their activities (e.g., travel alone) due to a lack of self-efficacy and fear, it is plausible that many women simply do not enjoy, or lack opportunities, to engage in a variety of activities and their decisions have little to do with efficacy cognitions. Furthermore, they may simply prefer to engage in various activities with other people for social benefits. Finally, both TMA and MSDT programs, particularly TMA, primarily focus on skill development, with only some attention to assertiveness types of training activities. Hence, skill and knowledge development related to assertiveness are likely minimal, making a lack of interpersonal self-efficacy growth, in retrospect, plausible. In addition, a ceiling effect as the result of high interpersonal self-efficacy pretest scores may have limited increases from pre- to posttest. It should be noted that our findings are in contrast to Weitlauf et al. (2001) and David et al. (2006) who found that various domains of self-efficacy were enhanced such as ones their intervention focused on (assertiveness and coping efficacy) and skills related to efficacy that was not directly addressed (i.e., sport self-efficacy). Similar to our speculation about why interpersonal and activities self-efficacy did not increase, it may also be that intervention activities are most closely linked to reducing the most serious type of fear (i.e., life-threatening fear), but are less relevant for influencing other types of less serious fear, where there is no imminent threat of danger (i.e., simply being alone). Program developers and instructors should clearly design and teach activities that directly influence skills and efficacy that they claim their programs develop.

 

A few limitations of the current study should be acknowledged. First, we examined a small convenience sample and they were not randomly assigned to the groups. The field research nature of the study likely contributed to the dropout rate and unbalanced groups. However, the total N for the intervention groups was comparable to previous research (e.g., David et al., 2006; Ozer & Bandura, 1990; Weitlauf et al., 2001) as was the dropout rate (Gidycz et al., 2006; Wietlauf et al., 2001) although the TMA subsample was small. Third, an assessment of behavior (e.g., skill in punching) would have provided additional support for the value of MSDT although we certainly believe that changing significant cognitions, such as efficacy and fear is of tremendous value.

 

In summary, our findings provide some moderate support for the effectiveness of MSDT interventions for reducing life-threatening fear and for enhancing self-defense self-efficacy. From a theoretical perspective, our findings support SCT and extend self-efficacy theory by linking enhanced efficacy with reduced fear as a result of an MSDT program that contained many of the elements (e.g., role modeling) thought to promote self-efficacy. Our results also support researchers and practitioners who argue for the value of MSDT programs. In particular, the increase in efficacy to defend one’s life and the decrease in fear for one’s life are, arguably, very empowering cognitive and affective changes. The current study is one of the first to simultaneously examine TMA and MSDT, relative to a comparison group, and examine both multidimensional self-efficacy and fear, and hence extend the extant literature.

 

Finally, Koss (1990) has cited two global strategies of violence prevention. First, approaches that strengthen individual capacities and reduce individual vulnerabilities such as TMA and MSDT programs are important. However, equally important are initiatives that promote social change. In the current study, we focused on the value of strengthening the individual capacities of women. However, we certainly agree that the curtailment of violence against women should involve both avenues for substantive change.

 

References

Abbey, A., BeShears, R., Clinton–Sherrod, A. M., & McAuslan, P. (2004). Similarities and differences in women’s sexual assault experiences based on tactics used by the perpetrator. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 323–332. DOI:10.1111/ j.1471-6402.2004.00149.x

 

Angleman, A. L., Shinzato, Y., Van Hasselt, V. B., & Russo, S. (2009). Traditional martial arts versus modern self-defense training for women: Some comments. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 89–93. DOI:10.1016/j.avb.2008.12.001

 

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 

Bandura, A. (1990). Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of personal agency. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 128 –163. DOI:10.1080/ 10413209008406426

 

Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511527692

 

Brecklin, L. R. (2008). Evaluation outcomes of self-defense training: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 60 –76. DOI:10.1016/j.avb .2007.10.001

 

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297– 334. DOI:10.1007/BF02310555

 

David, W. S., Simpson, T. L., & Cotton, A. J. (2006). Taking charge: A pilot curriculum of self-defense and personal safety training for female veterans with PTSD because of military sexual trauma. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 555–565. DOI:10.1177/0886260505285723

 

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. DOI:10.3758/BF03193146

 

Gidycz, C. A., Rich, C. L., Orchowski, L., King, C., & Miller, A. K. (2006). The evaluation of sexual assault self-defense and risk-reduction program for college women: A prospective study. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 173–186. DOI:10.1111/ j.1471-6402.2006.00280.x

 

Hinkelman, L. (2004). Women’s self-defense training: An examination of assertiveness, self-efficacy, hyper-femininity, and athletic identity. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 286.

 

Hollander, J. A. (2004). “I can take care of myself” The impact of self-defense training on women’s lives. Violence Against Women, 10, 205–235. DOI: 10.1177/1077801203256202

 

Hollander, J. A. (2010). Why do women take self-defense classes? Violence Against Women, 16, 459–478. DOI:10.1177/1077801210364029

 

Hughes, P. P., Marshall, D., & Sherrill, C. (2003). Multidimensional analysis of fear and confidence of university women relating to crimes and dangerous situations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 33–49. DOI:10.1177/0886260502238539

 

Hughes, P. P., Sherrill, C., Myers, B., Rowe, N., & Marshall, D. (2003). Self-defense and martial arts evaluation for college women: Preliminary validation of perceptions of dangerous situations scale. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 153–164.

 

Koss. (1990). The women’s mental health agenda: Violence against women. American Psychologist, 45, 374–380.

 

Koss, M. P., Abbey. A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., . . . White, J. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 357–370. DOI:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x

 

Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162–170. DOI:10.1037/0022-006X.55.2.162

 

Koss, M. P. & Gidycz, C. J. (1985). Sexual experiences survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422–423. DOI:10.1037/0022-006X.53.3.422

 

Koss, M. P. & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455–457. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.50.3.455

 

Madden, M. E. (1990). Attributions of control and vulnerability at the beginning and end of a karate class. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 787–794.

 

Madden, M. E. (1995). Perceived vulnerability and control of martial arts and physical fitness students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 899–910. DOI: 10.2466/pms.1995.80.3.899

 

Ozer, E. M. & Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 472– 486. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514 .58.3.472

 

Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119 –125. DOI:10.1002/1097- 4679(198201)38:1119::AID-JCLP2270380118 3.0.CO;2-I

 

Shim, D. J. (1998). Self-defense training, physical self-efficacy, body image, and avoidant behavior in women. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 4472.

 

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Thompson, B. (2009). A brief primer on effect sizes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 28, 251–254.

 

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (1999). Prevalence and incidence of violence against women: Findings from the national violence against women survey. The Criminologist, 24, 13–14.

 

U.S. Department of Justice. (2005). Criminal victimization (Publication No. NCJ 210674). Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvictgen.htm

 

Weitlauf, J. C., Cervone, D., Smith, R. E., & Wright, P. M. (2001). Assessing generalization in perceived self-efficacy: Multidomain and global assessments of the effects of self-defense training for women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1683–1691. DOI:10.1177/ 01461672012712011

 

Received March 15, 2011

Revision received August 19, 2011

Accepted August 24, 2011