El Centro College Psychology Assessment of Critical Thinking Rub.docx

El Centro College: Psychology: Assessment of Critical Thinking
Rubric
Rater (Scorer): Amy Kirchhoff Class/Course/Section:
PSYC 2301-_____ Student ID: _________________
Date: _________________
40 POINTS TOTAL
Performance
Element
Exemplary
(5)
Proficient
(4)
Developing
(3)
Emerging
(2)
Minimally or Not Present (1 or 0)
Comments
Score
I. Communication
A. Defines problem in own words
B. Explores topic by listing methodologies, goals of study or
meta-analysis and findings clearly and with pertinent details
A. Identifies the main idea or problem with numerous
supporting details and examples that are organized logically and
coherently.
A. Identifies the main idea or problem with some supporting
details and examples in an organized manner.
B. Elaborates on study or meta-analysis using professional
sources, and mentions other points of view, but does not clarify
or support own views in Comments section. Writer's
perspective is acceptable but not sequentially formatted.

A. Identifies the main idea or problem with few details or
examples in a somewhat organized manner
B. Provides minimal evidence, with little explanation.
A. Identifies the main
idea or problem poorly
with few or no details.
B.Substantial
inaccuracies in reporting the study or meta-analysis,
methodologies, variables, or findings. Elaboration
of evidence is insufficient
or not understandable to the reader
A. Does not identify the main idea or problem. States the main
idea or problem verbatim from the text (plagiarized).
B. Essentially an opinion paper with faulty descriptors.
5 4 3 2 1 Ø
ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ
N/A ϒ
II. Analysis
A. Compare & contrast available solutions
B. The topic posed is only part of the total. Does student find
interesting angles from which to explore the topic(s)?
A. Uses specific inductive or deductive reasoning to make
inferences regarding premises; addresses implications and
consequences; identifies facts and relevant information
correctly.

B. Raises important questions relevant to the assigned topic in
Comments section and answers them with evidence from
professional sources.
A. Uses logical reasoning to make inferences regarding
solutions; addresses implications and consequences; Identifies
facts and relevant information correctly.
B. Raises questions related to the topic in Comments section
but may not provide reader with adequate evidence for why
these additional questions should be considered.
A. Uses superficial reasoning to make inferences regarding
solutions; shows some confusion regarding facts, opinions, and
relevant, evidence, data, or information.
B. Topic explored from only one or two perspectives (i.e.,
sources).
A. Makes unexplained, unsupported, or unreasonable inferences
regarding solutions.
Makes multiple errors in distinguishing fact from fiction or in
selecting relevant evidence.
B. Fails to raise any
important questions related to the topic assigned. Does not
meet the criteria of the Assignment.
A. Does not analyze multiple solutions.
B. Makes no attempt at analysis of the topic.
5 4 3 2 1 Ø
ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ
N/A ϒ
Performance

Element
Exemplary
(5)
Proficient
(4)
Developing
(3)
Emerging
(2)
Comments
Score
III. Evaluation
A. Identify weaknesses in chosen solution, and discriminates
among evidence, anecdote, and emotion-based decisions.
Acknowledges that evidence supports phenomena but does not
prove its existence.
A. Insightfully interprets data or information; identifies
obvious as well as hidden assumptions, establishes credibility of
sources on points other than authority alone, avoids fallacies in
reasoning; distinguishes appropriate arguments from extraneous
elements; provides sufficient logical support.
A. Accurately interprets data or information; identifies obvious
assumptions, establishes credibility of sources on points other
than authority alone, avoids fallacies in reasoning; distinguishes
appropriate arguments from
extraneous elements; provides sufficient logical support.
A. Makes some errors in data or information interpretation;
makes arguments using weak evidence; provides superficial
support for conclusions or solutions.

A. Interprets data or information incorrectly;
supports conclusions or solutions without evidence or logic;
uses data, information, or evidence skewed by invalid
assumptions; uses poor or unacceptable sources of information
(e.g., Wikipedia); uses fallacious arguments.
A. Does not evaluate data, information, or evidence related to
chosen solution.
5 4 3 2 1 Ø
ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ
N/A ϒ
IV. Synthesis
A. Suggest ways to improve or strengthen chosen solution
A. Insightfully relates concepts and ideas from multiple
sources; uses new information to enhance chosen solution;
recognizes missing information; correctly identifies potential
effects of new information.
A. Accurately relates concepts and ideas from multiple sources;
uses new information to enhance chosen solution; correctly
identifies potential effects of new information.
A. Inaccurately or incompletely relates concepts and ideas from
multiple sources; shallow determination of effect of new
information on chosen solution.
A. Poorly integrates information from more than one source to
support chosen solution; Incorrectly predicts the effect of new
information on chosen solution.
A. Does not identify new information for chosen solution.

5 4 3 2 1 Ø
ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ
N/A ϒ
V. Reflection/ Application
A. Reflect on own thought processes:
“What did you LEARN from this process?”
“How does this article apply to the material discussed in class
and the textbook?” “How does this article apply to the real
world?”
A. Identifies strengths and weaknesses in own thinking;
recognizes personal assumptions, values, and perspectives,
compares to others’, and evaluates them in the context of
alternate points of view.
A. Identifies strengths and weaknesses in own thinking:
recognizes personal assumption, values, and perspective,
compares to others’, with some comparisons of alternate points
of view.
A. Identifies some personal assumptions, values, and
perspectives; recognizes some assumptions, values, and
perspectives of others; shallow comparisons of alternate points
of view.
A. Identifies some personal assumptions, values, and
perspectives; does not consider alternate points of view.
A. Does not reflect on own thinking.
5 4 3 2 1 Ø
ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ

N/A ϒ
VI.Sources & Citations
Does student demonstrate the proper use of citations and proper
References page(s) in accordance with APA guidelines?
Excellent sources drawn from literature in the professional
databases. Use of source information appropriately cited in
APA style both in context of narrative and on References
page(s).
Appropriate sources drawn from professional databases
thoughtfully summarized with relevance to topic well supported.
Use of sources derived from professional databases cited but
without a thoughtful summary as to why the sources are relevant
or how they enter into writer's discussion or critique
Professional sources cited, but “supported” with student’s
opinion or anecdote rather than thoughtful consideration of
actual source material.
No professional sources used or cited, and/or come from an
unreliable source.
Much of paper is copied from sources without citations
(plagiarized); no original work is evident.
5 4 3 2 1 Ø
ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ
N/A ϒ
Plagiarism here results in a ZERO (Ø) on the assignment.
Performance
Element
Exemplary
(5)

Proficient
(4)
Developing
(3)
Emerging
(2)
Comments
Score
VII.Spelling, Grammar, Usage
Available resources used to ensure grammatical & structural
accuracy (SpellCheck, Grammar Check, use of APA style). Are
transitions used to insure flow of thought? Is work coherent
and well organized?
Writing mechanics, word usage, grammar, and spelling contain
no errors. Student has used both SpellCheck and
GrammarCheck and has proofread own work. Transitions are
good; content is well thought out, well organized, and coherent.
minimal errors that do not affect the paper's content. Student
has used SpellCheck but not GrammarCheck. Needs work on
transitions and organization.
errors that affect the paper's content in a negative manner. Poor
transitions; not all sentences coherent. Minimal organization of
content.
many errors that negatively affect the paper's content. Minimal
- if any - use of transitions. Disorganized, sloppy and care-less
work. Minimally acceptable for college-level work.
Student shows no ability for appropriate sentence or paragraph
construction. No apparent effort to use corrective software.

Sentences often make no sense; no transitions; frequent
disagreement in tenses. Not acceptable for college-level work.
5 4 3 2 1 Ø
ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ
N/A ϒ
VIII.APA Requirements
Available resources used to ensure students have accurately
followed APA guidelines (must include: Title page, Abstract,
Narrative section, Reference Page(s), In-Text Citations). See
APA Template to start writing.
Well-developed Abstract that meets the required word limit of
150 to 250 words. In-text citations clearly lead to the correct
sources in the References page.
Above average level of preparedness, with few APA formatting
errors.
(1-4)
Variety of formatting styles used, with some inconsistencies
throughout the paper. APA formatting errors
(5-8).
Many formatting errors and a lack of organization. More than 8
formatting errors.
No apparent effort/ or very minimal effort to use APA
formatting.

May be lacking in-text citation completely, indicating
plagiarism whether knowingly or unknowingly.
5 4 3 2 1 Ø
ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ
N/A ϒ
IX. Assignment Requirements
Assignments require a minimum of 5 written pages in the body
of the paper. Your Professor will review the content of your
paper for the quality of paraphrasing within the assignment.
Length (max # pages) Reputable sources (peer reviewed) and
derived from professional sources in ECC Library’s online
databases (No use of Wikipedia or other non-reputable online
sources.) Carefully cites borrowed material and all sources used
in the paper appear in the References page. Minimal quotations
used and paraphrasing is well developed.
Missing 1-2 requirements. Uses mostly material from
professional databases, but still references sources such as
Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is NOT an acceptable source for use in ANY
psychology class at El Centro College.
Missing 3-4 requirements. Struggles with the concept of peer
reviewed sources, but shows improvement with paraphrasing
and use of quotations, etc.
Missing 5 or more requirements. Lacks an understanding of
professional sources and how to reference them yet makes an
attempt.
Does not meet the page limit. Uses non-reputable sources only.

Does not attempt to use professional sources in citations.
5 4 3 2 1 Ø
ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ
N/A ϒ
X. Critical Thinking, Understanding Evidence
Demonstrates understanding of relative values of evidence by
critically analyzing and questioning of published article.
Information is taken from sources with
enough interpretation to develop a coherent viewpoint on the
subject matter. Demonstrates some ability to question ideas.
Information is taken from source(s) with
some interpretation, but not enough to develop a coherent
analysis.
Viewpoints of experts are taken as mostly
fact, with little questioning.
Information is taken from source(s) with
minimal interpretation but is paraphrased.
Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact,
without question.
Information does not appear to come from original source or
may simply copy information from original source.
Maybe indicative of plagiarism whether knowingly or
unknowingly.
5 4 3 2 1 Ø
ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ ϒ
N/A ϒ

Comments:
Final Score:
0/50
References
Critical Thinking Gateway. (2010, May 2). SPC’s Assessment
of Critical Thinking (ARC) Scoring Template (St. Petersburg
College Critical Thinking Gateway) [Critical Thinking Rubric].
Retrieved January 6, 2012, from St. Petersburg College website:
http://www.spcollege.edu/criticalthinking/students/rubrics.htm
Haydndavis10 D5WWW7. (n.d.). Collaborative Learning
Community. RCampus.com: Open Tools for Open Minds
[Rubric Building Web Site]. Retrieved from iRubric website:
https://www.rcampus.com/rubricshowc.cfm?sp=yes&code=D5W
WW7
NOTE: The entry page to the St. Petersburg College website is
http://www.spcollege.edu/criticalthinking/index.htm
This rubric developed by Weston, M. B. and Dryden-Shepherd,
R., Faculty and Carter, H.S., Faculty (July 2014). El Centro
College, Department of Psychology, 801 Main Street, Dallas,

Texas 75202.
1
ABBREVIATED TITLE IN CAPITAL LETTERS 4
Full Title in Upper and Lower Case Letters
A Critiqué Submitted by
Name of Student
El Centro College
Psychology 2301, Section 53005, Spring 2012
ABBREVIATED TITLE IN CAPITAL LETTERS 2
Running head: ABBREVIATED TITLE IN CAPITAL
LETTERS1

Abstract
The abstract is a summary of YOUR paper but for this
assignment you will not be creating much content, so an
abstract will not be required. Consequently, you will center the
word Abstract as above (the content under the abstract is left
justified) and leave this section blank. You will however notice
that the header on this and the following pages does not include
the words “Running head:” but do include the actual running
head which is an abbreviated title that is 50 characters or less in
length.
Note: It is advisable for you to use this template as much of the
formatting has already been done. Also, when you submit your
paper for grading, it will be automatically sent to SafeAssign
which analyses your paper for similarities found in other papers
that have been submitted, research articles and websites. It is
highly functional and will most often catch plagiarism, so
please do not plagiarize.
Full Title in Upper and Lower Case LettersSummary
Read the author’s abstract as an example of how to write a
summary of the article but do NOT copy their abstract. For the
Summary section you will summarize the author’s article in
your own words. If you paraphrase or quote text from the
article, you MUST cite their work. If you do not, this
constitutes plagiarism and can result in a zero for your grade
and possibly lead to further disciplinary action from the dean.
Simply read the article, and write a summary in 150-250 words.
Here are a couple examples of how to use “in text citations:”
· Smith suggests that the average dog lives eight years (2011).
· It is believed that the average dog lives eight years (Smith,
2011). The author’s name was not listed in the sentence and
needs to be added to the end.
· “A review of over 10,000 records has determined that the

average dog’s lifespan covers eight years” (Smith, 2011, p154).
Quotes should include quotation marks and the citation should
identify the specific page(s) on which the quote was found.
In any case, the period for the sentence is after the citation.
…lives eight years (2011). Not …lives eight years. (2011)
Beginning on this page you will use paragraph indentions but do
not add additional lines between the headings but this entire
paper (including the header) will be written in 12 point font,
Arial or Times New Roman and double spaced.
ReviewComments
References
1st Author’s Last Name, Initial. & 2nd Author’s Last Name,
Initial. (year published). Write the full title with this type of
capitalization. Write theFull Journal Name in Italics in Regular
Capitalization 12(1). pp. 120-151.
Note: Use a hanging indention as seen above (i.e. do not indent
the first line of the reference but indent each line after for that
reference). For the names, do not change the order of the name
but also do not list first names, only initials. For the year, do
not add season or month. The 12 in italics is the volume number
and the 1 in parenthesis is the edition number which is not in
italics. Lastly end with the page range of the article followed by
a period.
Here is an example of an APA formatted article:
Copeland, R. D. (2017). A comprehensive study of different dog
breeds. Journal of Canine Friends, 34(2), pp. 123-145.

Children’s Critical Thinking When Learning from Others:
A Critique Submitted by
XXXXXXXXX
El Centro College
Psychology 2301, Section 53xxx, Spring 2013
Running head: CHILDREN AND CRITICAL THINKING
1
Running head: CHIDREN AND CRITICAL THINKING
1
Abstract
Children’s Critical Thinking When Learning from Others
Introduction
Everyday children must decide for themselves about what is a
reliable source of information. They must critically evaluate a
source, be it a cartoon watched on television or a conversation
held with another child or adult. Children must also determine if
a resource is reliable and credible or if it is lacking in real
information, then think critically about the information that is
given. Heyman’s (2008) meta-analytic study explores how
critical thinking skills can be taught to children and defines
critical thinking and analyses how early and how well these
critical thinking skills develop in children. Heyman (2008) also
explores how social experiences shape the development of these
skills, including a comparison of responses in Chinese and
American children. The researcher hopes that information from

this study, and prior studies discussed in this article, can be
used by parents as a means for guiding their children along a
path toward critical thinking (Heyman, 2008). ReviewCritique
CHILDREN AND CRITICAL THINKING
4
References
Heyman, G. D. (2008). Children’s critical thinking when
learning from others. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 17(5), pp. 344-347.
I would just like to give you a few pointers on the APA
assignments that you will be submitting. The first of which
is APA Writing Assignment #1. In this essay, the main focus is
writing in APA style. You will produce a four-page document
which will include the cover page, the abstract page, the third
page (which includes the running head, page number, full title,
and the three words "Summary," "Review" and "Comments"
each on their own line) and the final page which will be the
Reference page.
Please review the APA sample and template to assist you in
writing in APA style. One other important note is the The
Summary section (page 3) for your APA Writing Assignment #1
will be a summary of the article, not a summary of the subject
matter. The other two headings will be blank, please see the
sample paper available to you.
You will be graded on the content, APA formatting, of course
spelling and grammatical errors, and also content flow and
critical thinking.
I have provided a web links for your assistance in the APA
writing. Other resources include the additional book Writing in
Psychology, the writing sample, and the template.
For APA Writing Assignment #1, I will primarily be looking at
your APA style, the Reference section and the content of the

Summary section. I will give you feedback on your errors to
help you produce a better APA Writing Assignment #2.
However, I will not provide feedback if you wait to the last
minute to turn in the assignment or if you submit the assignment
in a format other than Microsoft Word.
Lastly, and most importantly, plagiarism will not be tolerated.
Authors of these articles spend months or even years to prepare
these articles and stealing their work will not be
tolerated. Plagiarism is simply not giving credit to someone else
for their work. And example of plagiarism would be
paraphrasing someone else's work and not citing them as the
original author. Of course, quoting someone and not giving
them credit is additionally called plagiarism. In essence, every
single sentence that you write should be cited if you are
paraphrasing or quoting someone else's work.
On the other hand, you do NOT want to turn in an assignment
that is just a paraphrase of someone else's work either.
(Remember, critical thinking is crucial in psychology; I want to
read your thoughts.) So, how do you not have one paraphrase
after another in your essay? You simply read the article, then
begin your summary/abstract with your thoughts and add cited
paraphrases/quotes to help fill in between your sentences. But
please be aware, plagiarism will not be tolerated. If you have
even a single sentence that is plagiarized, which means that it is
not cited, that may result in a grade of zero.
Here are a few small additional tips for professional writing....
· PROOF READ before submitting!!!!! Have something else
read your paper. Read your paper aloud. Step away from your
paper for a while and reread it. But please proofread.
· Do not use first person (YOU, me, I, we), unless that is what
you are intending to say. Do not write something like "You
know when you go to the store next to your house..." That is
poor academic writing. Our focus is to lead you to professional
writing. Instead, writing something like, "When a person visits
a store next to his or her home..."
· Write in 3rd person (he, she, them, they, their...).

· Spell numbers less than 10 (e.g. four, three) and use numerics
for numbers 10 and above (e.g. 35, 11).
· Do not try to get fancy with APA style; just use what is given
in the sample and template. For example, do not write in bold
unless it is appropriate to APA style.
· PROOF READ BEFORE submitting
· Use the full title of the article when you are writing the title.
· Read about the running head in APA format: This is
important! The running head should not be more than 50
characters in length. It should be placed in the header with the
page number and the words "Running head:" only appear on the
first page. The actual running head is typed in ALL CAPITAL
LETTERS.
· Abstract section is to be left justified and not indented, but the
word Abstract is centered.
· Content on page three is indented.
· On the Reference page, pay close attention to the details. For
example, the first line of the reference is NOT indented but
other lines are. Also pay attention to the year (do not use
month) and author's name (do not use first names). The title of
resources are specially capitalized (Alcoholism and work: A
study in....). The journal name and volume number are in
italics. Page numbers are identified last (e.g. pp. 123-
185). Watch the details.
· PROOF READ BEFORE submitting
· Do NOT cite any work you have not read. You can say "The
author cites previous research in the article that suggests....
(Shifron & Reysen, 2011)." where Shifron and Reysen are the
authors of the article you have read.
· USE SPELL CHECK!!!!!
· The Summary section of the Critique assignment is to be an 11
line (approximately) summary of the article. The Review is
a one or more page review of the article, and
the Comments section is to be YOUR COLLEGIATE level
feedback, not opinions, about the authors' research/article.
Let me say it again: PROOF READ before submitting!!!!!

I hope this is helpful,
Amy K.
For this assignment, you will:
1. Choose from one of the five articles that can be found in a
tab below. There is either a PDF or Internet link option to view
each article in its entirety.
2. Read your chosen article.
3. Review the rubric before beginning the assignment. This
assignment is worth as many as 40 points. You can find the
rubric in a tab below.
You will prepare an APA formatted paper which will include all
four (4) required pages. Information on how to use APA style
can be found under the Resources tab below.
4. Submit your paper via Blackboard.
There are three parts of this ONE assignment that will define
your grade:
1. APA style formatting
a. A well-developed Summary section that meets the required
word limit of 150 to 250 words.
b. In-text citations clearly lead to the correct sources in the
References page.
c. Summary section, including citations, and other required
pages
d. Formatted in accordance with APA 6th edition standards.
2. Content on your Summary section
a. Are your statements clearly understood, grammatically
correct, accurate and comprehensive. (A statement can be clear
but not accurate, as in "Most dogs are over 300 pounds in
weight.”)
b. Did you use spell check and review your grammar?
3. Your reference formatting - References should be formulated
correctly according to the APA 6th edition standards.

REVIEW
Addressing Sexual and Relationship Violence
in the LGBT Community Using a Bystander
Framework
Sharyn J. Potter, PhD, MPH, Kim Fountain, PhD, and Jane G.
Stapleton, MA
Sexual and relationship violence are two major public health
issues that affect an alarming number
of undergraduate students. As a result, many colleges and
universities have protocols to serve victims
of these forms of violence. Despite federal legislation stating
that all students should have equitable
experiences, current protocols and programs focus primarily on
heterosexual students. College stu-
dent victims of sexual and relationship violence who identify as
lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender
can face particular challenges, including disclosure of their
sexual and gender orientations, and re-
victimization when seeking services. In recent years an
increasing number of campuses have adopted
bystander prevention strategies to address sexual and
relationship violence. These strategies seek to
engage community members in the prevention of sexual and
relationship violence by training them
to identify and safely intervene in situations where sexual or
relationship violence is about to occur,
is occurring, or has occurred. In this article we review

published bystander prevention strategies that
focus on preventing sexual and relationship violence in the
campus community, and discuss how
bystander strategies are addressing or can address relationship
and sexual violence in the LGBT
community. (HARV REV PSYCHIATRY 2012;20:201–208.)
Keywords: bisexual. bystander prevention strategies, college,
gay, lesbian, relationship and sexual
violence, transgender
Sexual assault of women is the most common violent crime
committed on college campuses today; one in four college
From the Department of Sociology (Dr. Potter) and Women’s
Stud-
ies Program (Dr. Fountain and Ms. Stapleton), University of
New
Hampshire.
Original manuscript received 18 August 2011; revised
manuscript
received 17 December 2011, accepted for publication subject to
re-
vision 17 January 2012; revised manuscript received 9 February
2012.
Correspondence: Sharyn J. Potter, PhD, MPH, Department of
Sociol-
ogy, University of New Hampshire, 20 Academic Way, Durham,
NH
03824. Correspondence: [email protected]
©c 2012 President and Fellows of Harvard College
DOI: 10.3109/10673229.2012.712838

women experiences completed or attempted rape during
their college years.1 The majority of these assaults are
perpetrated by the victim’s acquaintances (e.g., classmates,
residence hall neighbors, dates) or intimate partners.1−3
College women are at higher risk for sexual assault than
peers who are not in college.4 Studies show that college men
also report unwanted sexual experiences.5,6 Recent research
indicates that 25% of women and 14% of men will experience
relationship violence over the course of their lifetimes.7
Exposure to sexual and relationship violence∗ is a key
∗ We use the term sexual violence to refer to a range of behav-
iors that are unwanted by the recipient, including, but not
limited
to, the following: derogatory or insulting remarks about
physical
appearance; persistent sexual advances that are undesired by the
recipient; unwanted touching; and unwanted oral, anal, or
vaginal
penetration. These behaviors could be initiated by someone
either
known or unknown to the recipient, including someone in an
exist-
ing relationship with the recipient. We use the term relationship
201
202 S. J. Potter et al.
Harv Rev Psychiatry
July/August 2012

public health issue and is associated with a multiplicity
of negative outcomes, including increased substance use,
depressive symptoms, health-risk behaviors, and symptoms
of posttraumatic stress disorder among various samples of
survivors.∗ ,9−13
The extent to which campuses are working to prevent
these problems varies widely.4 Most efforts are aimed
at heterosexual women—statistically, the most highly
represented group. But this population is not the only
one for which sexual and relationship violence is an issue.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students
represent a marginalized population at the same14 or at
higher risk for sexual and relationship violence15−18 as
their heterosexual peers. Yet the 5%–10% of undergraduate
student populations who identify as LGBT19,20 are signif-
icantly underserved by colleges’ prevention strategies for
sexual and relationship violence.
Campus efforts to combat such violence have demon-
strated mixed results regarding effectiveness, particularly
over time.21 Some prevention strategies have been viewed as
directly or indirectly victim blaming.22 Others have focused
too much on individuals or small groups (such as athletes or
fraternity members), or on criminal justice policies rather
than wider social change.23,24 Some campuses have therefore
begun to utilize a bystander approach to engage the broader
campus community—in particular, bystanders—in efforts to
reduce sexual and relationship violence on campus. In this
article we examine the extent to which the published by-
stander prevention strategies have addressed sexual and re-
lationship violence in the LGBT community, and we provide
suggestions to improve bystander-intervention frameworks.
SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP VIOLENCE
EXPERIENCED BY LGBT COLLEGE STUDENTS

Campus Climate for Students Who Identify as LGBT
Sociocultural bias against LGBT people and cultures, known
as heterosexism and homophobia, can frame LGBT identi-
ties as sinful, sick, perverted, and a threat to the traditional
family.25−27 When heterosexuality is posited as the norm,
violence to refer to a range of behaviors experienced in the con-
text of any type of intimate relationship or friendship. These be-
haviors include use of physical force or threats of force against
a
partner, such as slapping, punching, throwing objects,
threatening
with weapons, or threatening any kind of physical harm. It can
also
include extreme emotional abuse such as intimidation, blaming,
putting down, making fun of, and name calling.
∗ Although the terms victim and survivor are often used
interchangeably,7 in the legal definition the term victim rather
than
survivor is used to describe a person following an assault.8
acts of violence at every level of society perpetrated against
LGBT people are justified or explained through reference to
such negative constructions.28 The climate of LGBT intol-
erance on college campuses has been well documented by
researchers.29−34 For LGBT students, college campuses are
often unwelcoming, unsafe environments, where they expe-
rience harassment,29−31 isolation, ostracization,32 and phys-
ical violence.33 LGBT students can face discrimination or
harassment from their peers (e.g., roommates, classmates,
teammates) and other members of the campus community,
including the professional staff (e.g., coaches, hall directors,
professors, administrators, campus safety, health services

staff). Harassment and discrimination from campus com-
munity members can not only make LGBT students feel
unwelcome but also reduce their self-esteem and prevent
them from seeking help from campus professionals.32,33,35
Perpetrator Tactics
Perpetrators most commonly use two tactics to control their
victims: threatening to or actually revealing the victim’s sex-
uality to others (“outing” the victim), or isolating the victim.
For many lesbians who report abuse, the abuse occurs dur-
ing their first relationship, when they are most vulnerable
to batterers who have the capacity to control or manipulate
information.36 For students the impact of outing may be dev-
astating and may occur on several different levels. Many stu-
dents experiment with their sexuality or come out in college.
They may not tell their parents for any number of reasons,
including being cut off from financial and emotional support,
losing parental housing during school breaks, or losing jobs
that might be their only form of support.37−40 The college
environment can offer students the opportunity to explore
same-sex relationships,36 but many such first relationships
are at high risk for relationship violence because the victims
want both to confirm their sense of self and sexual identity,
and to “fit in.” The victims may also lack confidence in what
behaviors are acceptable in intimate same-sex relationships
and may have no or minimal contact with LGBT friend-
ship/community networks, within which they could air their
concerns. The desire to fit in leaves victims vulnerable be-
cause they may take risks, explain away the violence, or lack
the vocabulary or life skills to identify, name, and act on the
violence. For those who might possess such skills and sup-
port and who might even be out, the embarrassment behind
feeling that they somehow are not expressing their sexual
or gender identities “correctly” contributes to their silence
around relationship violence and sexual assaults. These fac-

tors and the perpetrators’ awareness of them increase the
likelihood of relationship violence.41
Isolation—one of the most effective and common tactics
that batterers resort to in heterosexual relationships42—is
often easy to use against LGBT victims because they may
Harv Rev Psychiatry
Volume 20, Number 4 Addressing Sexual and Relationship
Violence in the LGBT Community 203
not be open about their sexuality and are therefore socially
isolated. Alternatively, they may have come out but been
rejected by their social groups or families. A variation on
this theme is for batterers to limit the circle of people who
are allowed to know about the relationship, as the batterer
claims that they are not “out.”41
Barriers to Seeking Help and Reporting
The consequences and implications of sexual and relation-
ship violence in LGBT communities are both similar to, and
different from, those of the heterosexual community. Both
heterosexual and LGBT victims of sexual and relationship
violence who seek help must disclose the crime. Students
who identify as LGBT, however, may feel uncomfortable do-
ing so; the disclosure of the crime may also involve the dis-
closure of their sexual identities or gender orientations. For
students who are not out, their perceived need to hide their
sexual identities can be a barrier to seeking services. Peo-
ple who are just coming out or who are not accustomed to
talking about their sexual orientations may find the lan-
guage required to discuss their experiences inaccessible.43

Indeed, the language of sexual and relationship violence
tends to be extraordinarily gendered; female victims are
“attacked” or “abused” by male perpetrators, but fewer ex-
pressions are available to describe same-sex assaults. This
linguistic shortfall reflects common thinking; for instance,
some people cannot fathom or may explicitly deny that a
man can sexually assault another man. Even those who are
accustomed to speaking about same-sex situations on a va-
riety of levels may find it difficult to cross the linguistic gap
after a traumatic event. It can be all the more difficult for
someone who has not yet developed the confidence, let alone
the language related to his or her LGBT identity, to make a
report.
Male victims of sexual and relationship violence are often
blamed for not stopping an attack—which makes it difficult
for young men to speak of sexual or relationship violence
perpetrated by other men. Reporting requires them not only
to reveal very personal information but to frame acts of vio-
lence in a manner that makes sense in heterosexist culture,
in which victims are presumed to be heterosexual women.
Indeed, the current reauthorization of the Violence Against
Women Act faces opposition—for the first time—in large
part due to the addition of provisions for services address-
ing the LGBT communities. A gay man just coming to terms
with his sexuality may find it overwhelming to negotiate a
linguistic terrain that clearly marks him as gay and as a
victim of sexual assault.
LGBT individuals who identify as members of a racial or
ethnic minority can face additional burdens in facing stereo-
types of LGBT people as white and from Western cultures
when seeking help.44,45 Similarly, they face accusations of
being traitors to their racial or cultural identities for taking

on the LGBT identity.
Although all victims may face retribution from their
friends for seeking help or reporting the crime, on many
campuses the LGBT communities are small and insulated,
and the fear of retribution can be compounded. The actual
or perceived homophobia on college campuses may prevent
LGBT undergraduate victims of sexual and relationship vi-
olence from seeking help.
As with other marginalized groups, LGBT victims
may choose not to report violence, thereby avoiding fur-
ther stigmatization of the LGBT community.46,47 Victims
may be concerned that the identification and labeling
of same-sex perpetrators will further compromise the
perception of relationships that already involve negative
stereotyping.48 As members of marginalized communi-
ties, LGBT individuals—for fear of discrimination or
harassment—often have serious reservations about access-
ing authority figures or disclosing their sexuality.49 Many
LGBT youth attempt to access services or safety nets such
as religious figures, school counselors, or the police, only to
be told that their sexuality—not the actual perpetration of
the violence—is the issue. For some victims the inability
to obtain support from the system only underscores their
isolation and vulnerability.47
Existing Treatments
Services for LGBT and heterosexual victims of relationship
and sexual violence commonly take the form of one-on-one
counseling, advocacy efforts, and education. On college cam-
puses, collaborations with medical facilities, law enforce-
ment, and campus judicial boards may be part of these ser-
vices. In the United States, services for victims of sexual
and relationship violence are rarely fully inclusive, and the

funding of services to meet the needs of LGBT victims, in
particular, is typically inadequate.47 At the present time
lesbian victims of relationship violence have fewer options
than heterosexual victims for accessing safe and effective
services.49 Other studies have shown that some crisis staff
view same-sex relationship violence as less harmful than
heterosexual violence—a result of the stereotypes that men
can defend themselves and women are not violent.50 Be-
cause LGBT victims are often unwilling to report violence,
statistical data reflect lower rates of incidence than would
otherwise be the case, leading to minimal funding for direct
services, advocacy, and prevention for LGBT communities.
To be most responsive and effective, direct services, advo-
cacy, and prevention efforts must proactively respond to the
range of vulnerabilities that offenders exploit.51,52
Harv Rev Psychiatry
July/August 2012
USING BYSTANDER PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS
SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP VIOLENCE IN THE
LGBT COMMUNITY
In the social psychology literature, bystanders are defined
as individuals who witness criminal acts, emergency
situations, or instances where community norms are
violated.53−55 A bystander’s action or lack of action can
worsen, maintain, or improve the situation. Using research
on the effectiveness of prevention efforts, scholars and prac-
titioners have tried to engage bystanders as allies in pre-
venting sexual and relationship violence. Further impetus
for engaging bystanders comes from research on perpetrator

characteristics (e.g., hostility toward women, victimization
experiences)56 and situational factors, such as community
norms or community tolerance toward sexual and rela-
tionship violence that can facilitate or inhibit perpetrator
behaviors;57−60 indeed, violence occurs when there are mo-
tivated perpetrators, vulnerable potential victims, and the
absence of community members who can or will intervene.61
Attention to both perpetrator behavior and community
responsibility can facilitate effective community-level
prevention efforts. Bystander models focus on teaching
bystanders active, helpful behaviors to safely intervene in
situations that involve sexual and relationship violence.62
Although the use of bystander prevention strategies
on college campuses is growing, the majority of bystander
programs have not been formally evaluated, largely as a
result of limited funding and administrative time.63,64 Five
bystander programs for preventing sexual violence, as well
as one social-marketing campaign, have had evaluations
published in the peer-reviewed literature.65 The programs,
each of which utilizes a different approach, are currently in
place on college campuses in the United States and Canada.
The Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP) model devel-
oped by Katz in 1993 is one of the first violence prevention
programs using a bystander framework.66 The MVP pro-
gram, in addition to being used on college campuses, is used
with sports teams and with members of the U.S. military.
The program utilizes sports metaphors (e.g., a playbook) to
engage men in preventing violence against women.66 Since
its inception, the program has looked at the harassment of
gays and lesbians, and also at other heterosexist behaviors.
The occurrence of domestic violence and sexual assault in
same-sex couples is addressed, but the scenarios in the play-
book do not yet deal with bystander intervention when the

abuse is within LGBT relationships themselves—but only
when heterosexuals are abusing, harassing, or talking in
degrading ways about LGBT people (Jackson Katz, personal
communication).
The InterACT Sexual Assault Prevention Program is an
interactive skill-building program that seeks to increase
participants’ knowledge on the importance and effec-
tiveness of bystander interventions in preventing sexual
assault.67 While relationship and sexual violence within
the LGBT community is not a main focus, this phenomenon
is addressed during the program’s facilitated-discussion
component. InterACT has a separate program that is used
to address homophobia; its main focus is violence and
bullying aimed at LGBT people by heterosexuals, rather
than violence within the LGBT community (Marc Rich and
Courtney Ahrens, personal communication).
The Men’s Project68 incorporates discussion of bystander
techniques and utilizes a social-norms model of change,69,70
where peers’ perceptions of their peers’ attitudes and actions
are used to influence behavioral change. At the present time
this program does not address relationship and sexual vio-
lence in the LGBT community (Christine Gidycz, personal
communication).
The Men’s Program,71 a bystander program that utilizes
a film discussing a male-on-male rape as its focal point, does
not address sexual and relationship violence in same-sex
relationships (John Foubert, personal communication).
The Bringing in the BystanderTM in-person prevention
program trains participants to safely intervene when sexual
assault or relationship abuse is about to occur, is occurring,

or has occurred.62 The facilitator guide for this program in-
structs peer facilitators to explain that perpetrators and vic-
tims of sexual and relationship violence are not restricted to
particular sexual identities, relationships, or socioeconomic
backgrounds. “Its perpetrators and victims may be women
or men, young or old, gay, lesbian, straight or bisexual. Re-
lationship abuse affects people of all races, socioeconomic
backgrounds, and educational levels.”72
Most of the educational strategies for preventing sexual
and relationship violence are in the form of in-person pre-
vention programs, and the Know Your PowerTM Bystander
Social Marketing Campaign (developed in 2004) utilizes the
main tenets of the Bringing in the Bystander in-person
prevention program, in particular. The model of a social-
marketing campaign engages bystander behaviors when
sexual assault, relationship violence, or stalking is occur-
ring, is about to occur, and has occurred. The campaign, ad-
ministered campus-wide for a six-week period, utilizes 11′
x 17′ posters, bookmarks, table tents, full-side bus wraps,
computer pop-up screens, and products distributed with the
campaign logo.73 Studies have shown that participants who
have been exposed to, and who identified with, the campaign
images (compared to participants who report not identify-
ing with the images) were more likely both to believe that
they had a role to play in reducing sexual and relationship
violence and to have engaged in bystander behaviors.73−75
During the running of a campaign, the images that ad-
dress relationship and sexual violence in the heterosexual
community (16 images) and the LGBT community (4 im-
ages) are displayed together; the goal is to recognize that
sexual and relationship violence is not limited to heterosex-
ual relationships and to engage all community members to

Harv Rev Psychiatry
acknowledge and safely intervene in these situations. The
first LGBT image, developed in 2006, has two scenes. In the
first scene two friends realize that another friend is lying
about the source of the bruises on his arms. The friends
realize that the bruising is not the result of a skateboard-
ing accident but has been inflicted by the victim’s abusive
boyfriend. In the next scene one friend offers to take the
victim to the campus rape crisis center. In the second LGBT
image, developed in 2009, there are three scenes that il-
lustrate bystanders supporting their friends after the oc-
currence of a sexual assault. The first two scenes highlight
female victims. In the third scene a male victim discloses
that he has been sexually assaulted. His male friend tells
him that he believes him. In the third LGBT image, devel-
oped in 2011, a college party scene is taking place; a female
is being emotionally abusive to her girlfriend. In the im-
age the bystanders identify and label the abuse and devise
a strategy to safely intervene to help their friend. In the
fourth LGBT image, also developed in 2011, two friends are
sitting in a local pizza shop. One of them, a potential per-
petrator, describes how he has met a man online and that
he plans on “hooking up” with this man, regardless of what
the man wants. The friend labels his friend’s plan as the
perpetration of a sexual assault and tries to convince him to
change his mind.
The nascent field of engaging community members as
active bystanders to recognize and safely intervene when
they anticipate or witness sexual and relationship violence

provides an opportunity to prevent violence not only in the
majority campus community but also in marginalized cam-
pus communities (e.g., LGBTs and the disabled). Programs
that engage community members as both bystanders and
victims work to break down the isolation that threatens
potential victims.76 Anti-LGBT stigma may prevent non-
LGBT students from intervening, because of either fears of
association or an inability to identify violence in a situation
involving LGBT students. As college and university officials
continue to develop strategies to address relationship and
sexual violence in the heterosexual and non-heterosexual
communities, care must be taken that all members of the
larger community feel comfortable providing and seeking
help.
PROPOSED DIRECTIONS FOR THE FIELD, AND
CONCLUSION
Any bystander, whether LGBT or heterosexual, who en-
counters an instance of sexual or relationship violence in
the LGBT community should be able to recognize the vi-
olence and to intervene in situations where violence is
occurring—regardless of the sexual orientation of the vic-
tims and perpetrators. Bystanders who intervene must also
be taught, however, how to explain their empathic behavior
to their peers and family members (by suggesting, for exam-
ple, that LGBT relationships can be healthy and should be
respected), who may otherwise ridicule their choice to inter-
vene and may even see their advocacy as going against social
norms and supporting such relationships.77,78 Intervening
bystanders may be required to cope with guilt by associa-
tion, including potential violence directed toward them. In
fact, because of the potential for violence, agencies such as
the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-violence Project
send outreach workers into the field in pairs (or more) as a

safety measure.
As college administrators implement prevention strate-
gies to reduce sexual and relationship violence in the LGBT
community, it must be remembered that these two types of
violence are not the same as hate violence. That said, within
marginalized communities, all three types of violence can
be intertwined; research indicates the prevalence of hate
crime–related sexual assault among gay or bisexual men
ranges from 3.0% to 19.8% of all such assaults and among
lesbian or bisexual women, from 1% to 12.3%.79 Sexual and
relationship violence and hate violence require unique ap-
proaches, each with its own appropriate messaging and ef-
fective interventions. While the strategies addressing the
different forms of violence cannot be interchanged, neither
should they be developed in isolation. Only if campus ad-
ministrators address these issues will all students be free
to pursue their optimal intellectual and emotional growth
during their college or university years.
Although some of the bystander prevention strategies ad-
dress the discrimination and bullying that is faced by LGBT
students,66,67 most do not. There are a few exceptions.62,73
These findings are problematic considering the prevalence of
sexual and relationship violence in the LGBT undergradu-
ate community and the unique barriers that LGBT students
face when seeking help. The use of strategies to engage
members of the broader community in preventing sexual
and relationship violence within and against the LGBT com-
munity needs to be increased. Furthermore, when victims
who identify as LGBT seek help, they often find counselors
that are ill equipped to offer support;14,48,80 counselors must
be trained to provide professional and culturally competent
services to LGBT victims. Finally, since the LGBT commu-
nity is heterogeneous, efforts need to be made to understand

why some groups access support and others do not.81
Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of
interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content
and writing of the article.
REFERENCES
1. Fisher BS, Cullen FT, Turner MG. The sexual victimization
of
college women. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice
and Bureau of Justice, 2000 [Report No. NIJ 182369].
Harv Rev Psychiatry
July/August 2012
2. Koss M, Harvey M. The rape victim: clinical and community.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991.
3. Sampson R. Acquaintance rape of college students.
Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services, 2002.
4. Karjane HM, Fisher BS, Cullen FT. Sexual assault on
campus:
what colleges and universities are doing about it. Washing-
ton, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2005 [Report No. NCJ
205521].
5. Banyard VL, Ward S, Cohn ES, Moorhead C, Walsh W. Un-
wanted sexual contact on campus: a comparison of women’s

and men’s experiences. Violence Vict 2007;22:52–70.
6. Isley P. Sexual assault of men: college-age victims. NASPA J
1998;35:305–17.
7. Koziol-McLain J, Campbell JC. Universal screening and
mandatory reporting: an update on two important issues for
victims/survivors of intimate partner violence. J Emerg Nurs
2001;27:602–6.
8. University of North Carolina, Greensboro. Safe
Zone/Violence:
legal terms. http://cap.uncg.edu/safezone/topics/violence/#legal
9. Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, et al. The National Inti-
mate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 sum-
mary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Preven-
tion and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
2011.
10. Acierno R, Brady K, Gray M, Kilpatrick D, Resnick H, Best
CL.
Psychopathology following interpersonal violence: a compari-
son of risk factors in older and younger adults. J Clin Geropsy-
chol 2002;8:13–23.
11. Arata CM, Burkhart BR. Post-traumatic stress disorder
among
college student victims of acquaintance assault. J Psychol Hu-
man Sex 1996;8:79–92.
12. Brener ND, McMahon PM, Warren CW, Douglas KA.
Forced
sexual intercourse and associated health-risk behaviors among
female college students in the United States. J Consult Clin
Psychol 1999;67:252–9.

13. Larimer ME, Lydum AR, Anderson BK, Turner AP. Male
and
female recipients of unwanted sexual contact in a college stu-
dent sample: prevalence rates, alcohol use, and depression
symptoms. Sex Roles 1999;40:295–308.
14. Duke A, Davidson M. Same-sex intimate partner violence:
les-
bian, gay, and bisexual affirmative outreach and advocacy. J
Aggression Maltreat Trauma 2009;18:795–816.
15. Rothman E, Silverman J. The effect of a college sexual
assault
prevention program on first-year students’ victimization rates.
J Am Coll Health 2007;55:283–90.
16. Duncan DF. Prevalence of sexual assault victimization
among
heterosexual and gay lesbian university-students. Psychol Rep
1990;66:65–6.
17. Rhodes SD, McCoy TP, Wilkin AM, Wolfson M. Behavioral
risk
disparities in a random sample of self-identifying gay and non-
gay male university students. J Homosex 2009;56:1083–100.
18. Bowman R, Mogan H. Comparison of rates of verbal and
phys-
ical abuse on campus by gender and sexual orientation. Coll
Stud J 1998;32:43–52.
19. Gonyea RM, Moore JV. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
transgen-
der students and their engagement in educationally purpose-

ful activities in college. 2007.
http://cpr.iub.edu/uploads/GLBT%
20and%20Engagement-%20ASHE%202007.pdf
20. Weiss S. About 12 percent of students identify as gay or
bisexual. Brown Daily Herald 2010;12 Nov. http://www.
browndailyherald.com/about-12-percent-of-students-identify-
as-gay-or-bisexual-1.2403002
21. Anderson L, Whiston S. Sexual education programs: a meta-
analytic examination of their effectiveness. Psychol Women Q
2005;29:374–88.
22. Schewe PA, O’Donohue W. Rape prevention: methodologi-
cal problems and new directions. Clin Psychol Rev 1993;13:
667–82.
23. Potter RH, Krider JE, McMahon PM. Examining elements
of campus sexual violence policies. Violence Against Women
2000;6:1345–62.
24. Swift CF, Ryan-Finn K. Perpetrator prevention: stopping the
development of sexually abusive behavior. In: Swift CF, ed.
Sexual assault and abuse: sociocultural context of prevention.
New York: Haworth, 1995.
25. Jackson S, Scott S. Sexual antinomies in late modernity.
Sexu-
alities 2004;7:233–48.
26. Seidman S. From polluted homosexual to the normal gay:
changing patterns of sexual regulation in America. In: Ingra-
ham C, ed. Thinking straight: new work in critical heterosexu-
ality studies. New York: Routledge, 2005.
27. Bryant K. In defense of gay ghildren? “Progay” homo-

phobia and the production of homonormativity. Sexualities
2008;11:455–75.
28. Herek GM. Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences
among
sexual minority adults in the United States: prevalence esti-
mates from a national probability sample. J Interpers Violence
2009;24:54–74.
29. Brown R, Clarke B, Gortmaker V, Robinson-Keilig R.
Assessing
the campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
(LGBT) students using a multiple perspectives approach. J Coll
Stud Dev 2004;45:8–26.
30. D’Augelli AR. Lesbians’ and gay men’s experiences of
discrimi-
nation and harassment in a university community. Am J Com-
munity Psychol 1989;17:317–21.
31. Rankin S, Weber G, Blumenfeld W, Frazer S. State of
higher
education for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
Charlotte, NC: Campus Pride, 2010.
32. Hamilton L. Trading on heterosexuality: college women’s
gen-
der strategies and homophobia. Gend Soc 2007;21:145–72.
33. Rankin, SR. Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
transgender people: a national perspective. New York: National
Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, 2003.
34. Waldo CR. Out on campus: sexual orientation and academic
climate in a university context. Am J Community Psychol
1998;26:745–74.

35. Boysen GA, Vogel DL, Cope MA, Hubbard A. Incidents of
bias in
college classrooms: instructor and student perceptions. J Divers
Higher Educ 2009;4:219–34.
36. Ristock J. No more secrets: violence in lesbian
relationships.
London: Routledge, 2002.
37. Turell S, Herman M. “Family” support for family vio-
lence: exploring community support systems for lesbian and
Harv Rev Psychiatry
bisexual women who have experienced abuse. J Lesbian Stud
2008;12:211–24.
38. Floyd FJ, Stein TS. Sexual orientation identity formation
among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths: multiple patterns of
milestone experiences. J Res Adolesc 2002;12:167–91.
39. Burke TW, Owen SS. Same-sex domestic violence: is
anyone
listening? Gay Lesbian Rev Worldwide 2006;13:6–7.
40. Chutter K. Opening our awareness to heterosexist and
homo-
phobic attitudes in society. Relational Child Youth Care Pract
2007;20:22–7.

41. Donovan C, Hester M, Holmes J, McCarry M. Comparing
domestic abuse in same sex and heterosexual relationships
[Initial report from study funded by the Economic and So-
cial Research Council, award no. RES-000-23-0650]. 2006.
http://www.broken-rainbow.org.uk/cohsar report.pdf
42. Stark, E. Coercive control: the entrapment of women in per-
sonal life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
43. Kulick D. Gay and lesbian language. Annu Rev Anthropol
2000;29:243–85.
44. Barrett DC, Pollack LM. Whose gay community? Social
class,
sexual self-expression, and gay community involvement. Sociol
Q 2005;46:437–56.
45. Crawford I, Allison KW, Zamboni BD, Soto T. The
influence
of dual-identity development on the psychosocial functioning
of African-American gay and bisexual men. J Sex Res 2002;
39:179–89.
46. McClennen J, Summers A, Vaughan C. Gay men’s domestic
violence: dynamics, help-seeking behaviors and correlates. J
Gay Lesbian Soc Serv 2002;14:23–49.
47. National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. Hate
violence
against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the
United States: a report by the National Coalition of Anti-
Violence Programs. New York: NCAVP, 2009.
48. Bornstein D, Fawcett J, Sullivan M, Senturia K, Shiu-
Thornton
S. Understanding the experiences of lesbian, bisexual and trans

survivors of domestic violence: a qualitative study. J Homosex
2006;51:159–81.
49. Irwin J. (Dis)counted stories: domestic violence and
lesbians.
Qual Soc Work 2008;7:199–215.
50. Brown M, Groscup J. Perceptions of same-sex domestic
violence
among crisis center staff. J Fam Violence 2009;24:87–93.
51. Healy SA. Advocating for health and human services: the
New
York experience. J Gay Lesbian Psychother 2004;8:43–66.
52. Frazer S. LGBT health and human services needs in New
York
State. New York, New York: Empire State Pride Agenda Foun-
dation and New York State Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans-
gender Health and Human Services Network, 2009.
53. Darley JM, Latane B. Bystander intervention in
emergencies:
diffusion of responsibility. J Pers Soc Psychol 1968;8:377–83.
54. Latane B, Darley JM. Help in a crisis: bystander response to
an emergency. Morristown, NJ: General Learning, 1976.
55. Moriarity T. Crime, commitment, and the responsive
bystander:
two field experiments. J Pers Soc Psychol 1975;31:370–6.
56. Lisak D, Miller PM. Repeat rape and multiple offending
among
undetected rapists. Violence Vict 2002;17:73–84.

57. Schwartz MD, DeKeseredy W. Sexual assault on the college
campus: the role of male peer support. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 1997.
58. Berkowitz AD. Fostering men’s responsibility for
preventing
sexual assault. In: Schewe PA, ed. Preventing violence in rela-
tionships: interventions across the lifespan. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association, 2002.
59. Schwartz MD, DeKeseredy WS. Aggregation bias and
woman
abuse. J Interpers Violence 2000;15:555–65.
60. DeKeseredy WS, Schwartz MD, Alvi S. The role of pro-
feminist men in dealing with woman abuse on the Cana-
dian college campus. Violence Against Women 2000;6:
918–35.
61. Schwartz MD, DeKeseredy WS, Tait D, Alvi S. Male peer
support and a feminist routine activities theory: understand-
ing sexual assault on the college campus. Justice Q 2001;18:
623–49.
62. Banyard V, Moynihan M, Plante E. Sexual violence
prevention
through bystander education: an experimental evaluation. Am
J Community Psychol 2007;35:463–81.
63. Potter S, Stapleton J. Bringing in the target audience
in bystander social marketing materials for communi-
ties: suggestions for practitioners. Violence Against Women
2011;17:797–812.
64. Potter S, Banyard V. Guest editors’ introduction. Violence
Against Women 2011;17:679–83.

65. Potter SJ, Banyard VL, eds. Special issue: engaging com-
munities to end sexual violence: current research on by-
stander focused prevention. Violence Against Women 2011;
17(6).
66. Katz J, Heisterkamp H, Fleming W. The social justice roots
of the Mentors in Violence Prevention Model and its ap-
plication in a high school setting. Violence Against Women
2011;17:684–702.
67. Ahrens C, Rich M, Ullman J. Rehearsing for real life:
the impact of the InterACT sexual assault prevention
program on self-reported likelihood of engaging in by-
stander interventions. Violence Against Women 2011;17:760–
76.
68. Gidycz C, Orchowski L, Berkowitz A. Preventing sexual ag-
gression among college men: an evaluation of a social norms
and bystander intervention program. Violence Against Women
2011;17:720–42.
69. Berkowitz, A. An overview of the social norms approach.
In:
Lederman L, Stewart L, eds. Changing the culture of college
drinking. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, 2005.
70. Fabiano PM, Perkins HW, Berkowitz A, Linkenbach J, Stark
C.
Engaging men as social justice allies in ending violence against
women: evidence for a social norms approach. J Am Coll Health
2003;52:105–12.
71. Foubert J. In practice—anti-rape on the road: men hit
the highways to share a powerful message. About Campus
2005;10:24–7.

72. Moynihan MM, Banyard VL, Plante EG, Eckstein RP.
Bringing
in the Bystander:TM establishing a community of responsibility.
Facilitator’s guide. Durham: University New Hampshire, 2010.
73. Potter SJ. Using a multi-media social marketing campaign to
increase active bystanders on the college campus. J Am College
Health 2012;60;282–95.
74. Potter SJ, Moynihan MM, Stapleton JG. Using social
self-identification in social marketing materials aimed at
Harv Rev Psychiatry
July/August 2012
reducing violence against women on campus. J Interpers
Violence 2011;26:971–90.
75. Potter SJ, Stapleton JG. Translating sexual assault and
stalk-
ing prevention from a college campus to a US military post:
piloting the Know Your Power Social Marketing Campaign. J
Interpers Violence 2012;27:1593–1621.
76. Horn SS, Romeo KE. Peer contexts for lesbian, gay,
bisexual,
and transgender students: reducing stigma, prejudice, and dis-
crimination. Prev Res 2010;17:7–10.
77. Herek GM. Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay
men: correlates and gender differences. J Sex Res 1988;25:

451–77.
78. Schulte L. Similarities and differences in homophobia
among African Americans and Caucasians. Race Gend Class
2002;9:71–93.
79. Rothman EF, Exner D, Baughman AL. The prevalence of
sexual
assault against people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual
in the United States: a systematic review. Trauma Violence
Abuse 2011;12:55–66.
80. Renzetti C. Violent betrayal: partner abuse in lesbian
relation-
ships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992.
81. Turell S, Cornell-Swanson L. Not all alike: within-group
differ-
ences in seeking help for same-sex relationship abuses. J Gay
Lesbian Soc Serv 2005;18:71–88.
Copyright of Harvard Review of Psychiatry is the property of
Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

El Centro College Psychology Assessment of Critical Thinking Rub.docx

El Centro College Psychology Assessment of Critical Thinking Rub.docx

More Related Content

Similar to El Centro College Psychology Assessment of Critical Thinking Rub.docx

More from gidmanmary

Recently uploaded

El Centro College Psychology Assessment of Critical Thinking Rub.docx