Five Things You Should Know About Sexual Assault Awareness Month

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

1. It’s Been Around Since the name1980’s: Sexual Assault Awareness Month, otherwise known as SAAM, was established in the 1980’s. SAAM was created after organizers made October the month of awareness of domestic violence. Later, the National Coalition against Sexual Assault questioned activists on the week they would like to bring awareness to sexual assault. Activists chose one week in April. By the 1990’s, several sexual assault awareness events were provided throughout the month of April. Consequently, activists wanted to modify the week of Sexual Assault Awareness into Sexual Assault Awareness Month. In 2001, Sexual Assault Awareness was officially recognized by the United States as Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

2. The Goal is to Educate the Public on How to Prevent Sexual Assault: Organizers wanted to create a time of awareness for sexual assault and educate the public on ways to prevent sexual assault from happening. Organizers hoped to encourage individuals to work together to help sexual assault survivors and end rape culture.
teal ribbon
3. It’s Represented By a Teal Ribbon: SAAM is represented by a teal ribbon. The teal ribbon signifies sexual violence prevention.

4. The Intended Audience is… Everyone: Resources and events are intended for the public. This includes parents, educators, coaches, spiritual leaders, and students of all ages. These events and activities are geared towards specific groups such as college students who are part of a Greek Life.

5. You Can Help With the SAAM Action Kit: Every year, activists and the public create posters, clothing, postcards, and coloring pages to inform people about SAAM. Furthermore, organizers designed an action kit that contains several useful resources. The action kit contains several pages of information about SAAM, how to bring awareness to the public, and numerous posters that individuals are able to print off and hang up around their communities. All resources are presented in different languages, including Spanish and English. Social media sites are another great place that SAAM organizers want the public to utilize. On Instagram, people can include #30DaysofSAAM in their posts. Additionally, people can promote SAAM during the month of April using #SAAM in their Twitter and Facebook posts.

Want to learn more? Visit the official SAAM website here: http://www.nsvrc.org/saamposter

Short Fuse: The History of Internet Trolling

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

 

In this short episode, Kate Farley (UW-Green Bay Instructional Technologist and All the Rage Producer) and Alexandra Graff (Intern and Student at UW-Green Bay) talk about the brief history of internet trolling and the effects it has on individuals. Plus, Alexandra talks with Jonathan Bishop, the founder of the Center for Research into Online Communities and e-Learning Systems.


Pet Peeves: The Role of Happiness and Mindfulness

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

relationship difficulties: young couple having a conflictFeeling frustrated by slow walkers, people who fail to use their turn signal, or people who forget to cover their mouths when they cough? These relatively petty concerns are called pet peeves. Pet peeves like these and others represent particular occasions, actions, or individuals that cause a person to complain, feel frustrated or get angry.

How are relationships affected by pet peeves? What role does mindfulness play in reducing negative feelings? Kowalski and colleagues sought to answer these questions in their study Pet Peeves and Happiness: How Do Happy People Complain? They examined participants’ pet peeves via a survey that included listing biggest personal irritations, assessments of positive and negative emotions, mindfulness, depression, and happiness.

Results from this study suggest that the most reported pet peeves included chewing gum loudly, mumbling, being unclean, not listening, whining, and being late. In addition, pet peeves made people less satisfied with their relationships with others. This was due to people constantly expressing their annoyances to their significant other. As a result, individuals were irritated and felt that their partner was intentionally trying to make them upset. Furthermore, people reported feeling unhappy due to others engaging in their pet peeves. Mindfulness appeared to make a difference in how people felt when they saw others partaking in their pet peeves. Kowalski and colleagues found two ways that people can deal effectively with their pet peeves.  First, people can express their grievances when they think that it will make a difference. Individuals realize that by expressing their grievances to their significant other, it will only make things worse. Second, individuals can engage in mindfulness to better deal with their pet peeves and increase happiness. Happy people tend to avoid engaging in negative thoughts. By thinking of their pet peeves and expressing their annoyances to others, this decreases feelings of happiness and increases negativity.

AlexandraBy Alexandra Graff
Alexandra is a senior, majoring in Psychology and minoring in Human Development. After graduating from the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, she plans on working in the education or healthcare field as a psychometrist.


Kowalski, R., Allison, B., Giumetti, G., Turner, J., Whittaker, E., Frazee, L., & Stephens, J. (2014). Pet peeves and happiness: How do happy people complain? The Journal of Social Psychology, 154, 278-282.

Why do Trolls Troll?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

InternTrollfaceet trolls, or those who intentionally bait people online by starting arguments, posting dishonest, or offensive comments, have received a lot of attention in the media as of late. Despite that attention, there’s a lack of understanding on why trolls do what they do. How does one become a troll? Is it because of his or her personality, social motivation, or that he or she is just bored? Drs. Naomi Craker and Evita March explored these very questions with a study of the personality characteristics and social incentives on trolling behaviors in their study The Dark Side of Facebook: The Dark Tetrad, Negative Social Potency, and Trolling Behaviors.

Craker and March assessed participants’ thoughts and actions regarding online trolling via an online survey that included the Global Assessment of Facebook Trolling, Social Rewards Questionnaire, The Dirty Dozen and the Short Sadistic Impulse Scale.

Results from this study suggest that some personality traits do not influence online trolling behaviors, such as narcissism and Machiavellianism. On the other hand, individuals displaying psychopathic and sadistic behaviors were more likely to engage in internet trolling. Psychopathic individuals did not feel compassion towards other internet users and as a result, they were more likely to harass and embarrass others. Sadistic individuals enjoyed inflicting pain and humiliation on victims by posting inappropriate statements, lying, or cursing on the victim’s Facebook page. Online trolls also participated in these behaviors due to social motivations, such as having control and authority over other internet users.

Alexandra

By Alexandra Graff
Alexandra is a senior, majoring in Psychology and minoring in Human Development. After graduating from the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, she plans on working in the education or healthcare field as a psychometrist.


Craker, N. & March, E. (2016). The dark side of Facebook: The dark tetrad, negative social potency, and trolling behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 79-84.

Episode 6: Toxic Masculinity (Part 2)

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone


In our second episode on Toxic Masculinity, we talk about the science linking masculinity to anger, aggression, and structural violence. Plus, Chuck talks with Dr. Karlyn Crowley, professor of English and Women’s and Gender Studies and director of the Cassandra Voss Center at St. Norbert College. Like always, we end with an anger management tip and talk about what’s been making us angry lately.


Short Fuse: Toxic Masculinity and Super Bowl Commercials

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone


In this short episode, Drs. Ryan Martin and Bryan Carr (UW-Green Bay Communication Department) talk about toxic masculinity, or the lack thereof, in yesterday’s Super Bowl commercials.

All the Rage is a podcast from Drs. Ryan Martin and Chuck Rybak at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. From road rage to internet trolls, All the Rage covers all topics related to anger and violence. If you want to be a guest, or just have a question or an idea for an episode, call or text (920) 328-5167 or email me at martinr@uwgb.edu.


Precarious Manhood Theory: What Happens When Masculinity is Threatened?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

downloadExtreme beliefs in maintaining traditional gender roles may come down to something called the “Precarious Manhood Theory” (Vandello & Bosson, 2013). That is, when men do not feel masculine, they are more likely to engage in gender stereotypical behaviors, such as aggression, taking risks with money, and avoiding things like housework and childcare. One question that remains, though, is does the precarious manhood theory hold up in cultures where there are few, if any, differences between male and female roles? Kosakowska-Berezecka and colleagues (2016) sought to answer this with a study in Poland where there are fewer differences in male and female gender roles.

Kosakowska-Berezecka and colleagues’ work consisted of three studies, in which participants were told they had either high testosterone levels or low testosterone levels (regardless of their actual testosterone levels), were asked to rate themselves on masculine and feminine traits or to justify whether they believed in traditional gender roles.

Results from this study suggest that male individuals who are informed of having low testosterone felt that they were not “manly” enough, and were more likely to engage in gender stereotypical behaviors, such as getting involved in physical fights. On the other hand, males who were told they had high testosterone levels were more likely to agree with equality between females and males and were more likely to partake in perceived “feminine” responsibilities such as caretaking or doing housework. Last, males who identified with an egalitarian culture were less likely to report masculinity threats and did not feel the need to display certain masculine behaviors in order to prove their “manliness” to others.

AlexandraBy Alexandra Graff
Alexandra is a senior, majoring in Psychology and minoring in Human Development. After graduating from the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, she plans on working in the education or healthcare field as a psychometrist.


Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Besta, T., Adamska, K., Jaśkiewicz, M., Jurek, P., & Vandello, J. (2016). If my masculinity is threatened I won’t support gender equality? The role of agentic self-stereotyping in restoration of manhood and perception of gender relations. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17, 274-284.

Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 101-113.