A cross-disciplinary review of empirical studies addressing repeat versus time-limited sexual violence perpetration

Swartout, Kevin M.; Heer, Brooke A. de; Thompson, Martie P.; Zinzow, Heidi M.; Brennan, Carolyn

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-819202-3.00015-8

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the discernment that abusers are predominantly in a personality sub-group appears to be completely unapplied in the sociological literature on SH (an exception is [100]) and likewise makes no appearance in an NAS Report typifying researcher acuity. In recent reviews of campus sexual assault, the LSH personality is unmentioned as a risk factor [101,102]. This problem will be examined in more detail in a future submission [81].…”

Section: An Inadequacy Of Study and Its Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Falsification of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire: No Evidence of Systemic Sexual Harassment in Academic STEM

Frank

2022

Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Herein, the socio-psychological narrative of sexual harassment (SH) is critically evaluated. The notion of systemic SH in university departments of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is contradicted by the overwhelming (>90%) career satisfaction among female STEM academics. The Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ), central to the study of SH, inheres the nominalistic fallacy. SEQ usage deploys subjectivist methodologies, categorical ambiguity, the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and treats respondents as cyphers. Intercorrelation of SEQ factors reduces response statistics by 42%, while phase-space vector geometry indicates the SEQ does not measure SH. Personality analysis implies that serial abusers dominate the incidence of SH. The widespread notion that 20–25% of female college students suffer violent sexual assault rests on a misreading of published work. The 2016 Campus Climate Survey permits an upper limit estimate that 3.2% of female college students suffer rape at the hands of 4.3% of male student perpetrators, largely accompanied by drugs or alcohol. The 2018 National Academy (NAS) Report on sexual harassment in STEM exhibits negligent scholarship and carelessly generalizing statistics and may itself promote violation of the EEOC legal definition of SH. Despite instances of grievous sex-based abuse, there is no evidence that female STEM academics face systemic sexual harassment. Finally, evolutionary psychology and the social significance of personality provide a scientific understanding of SH.

show abstract

Section: An Inadequacy Of Study and Its Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Falsification of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire: No Evidence of Systemic Sexual Harassment in Academic STEM

Frank

2022

Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Gender Differences in Sexual Violence Perpetration Behaviors and Validity of Perpetration Reports: A Mixed-Method Study

Jeffrey,

Senn

2024

The Journal of Sex Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A cross-disciplinary review of empirical studies addressing repeat versus time-limited sexual violence perpetration

Cited by 2 publications

References 42 publications

Falsification of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire: No Evidence of Systemic Sexual Harassment in Academic STEM

Falsification of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire: No Evidence of Systemic Sexual Harassment in Academic STEM

Gender Differences in Sexual Violence Perpetration Behaviors and Validity of Perpetration Reports: A Mixed-Method Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About