Expanding Our View: Demographic, Behavioral, and Contextual Factors in College Sexual Victimization

Abstract

Despite efforts on some college campuses to address the issue of sexual victimization, the numbers have not changed much over the last four decades. The purpose of this study is to examine how demographic, contextual, and behavioral factors influence sexual victimization on college campuses. Using data from the Fall 2011 National College Health Assessment/American College Health Association survey, we examine three hypotheses: (1) contextual factors will have a greater effect on the likelihood of victimization than behavioral factors; (2) demographic factors will have a greater effect on the likelihood of victimization than behavioral factors; and (3) contextual factors for men will have a greater effect than contextual factors for women. While previous studies have tackled portions of these larger objectives, few studies have focused on all three sets of factors of analysis simultaneously. Overall, we find that behavioral factors predict sexual victimization better than either demographic or contextual factors for both men and women. However, we also find that some contextual factors are significant, including variables not generally discussed in the literature, such as perception of typical student behaviors and dissemination of violence prevention programming and information. In addition, we add to the literature by showing how demographic, behavioral, and contextual factors of sexual victimization vary in significance for men and women. These findings support the calls for more sexual violence prevention programming on college campuses that is more intersectional and addresses the issue of sexual violence based on the knowledge we have gained about individual, interactional, and institutional factors that contribute to this problem.

A Systematic Review of Campus Characteristics Associated With Sexual Violence and Other Forms of Victimization

“…For example, using large samples of schools (e.g., 474–524 institutions), studies have found that schools with larger student body size (Moylan et al, 2019; Stotzer & MacCartney, 2016) and campuses that are primarily residential (Stotzer & MacCartney, 2016) have higher rates of sexual assault victimization. However, in an analysis of 44 institutions that included these factors along with personal demographic characteristics and behavioral factors (e.g., personal substance use), neither campus size nor residentiality were associated with sexual assault victimization after accounting for personal characteristics (Rogers & Rogers, 2020). Of note, the latter study (with only 44 campuses) may have been underpowered to detect the effects of institutional factors on sexual assault victimization rates.…”

“…• Public versus private (Oriol et al, 2019;Robers et al, 2014) • Co-ed versus not (Mucherah et al, 2018) • Public versus private (Fernandez & Lizotte, 1995;Fox & Hellman, 1985;Sloan, 1992;Stotzer & Hossellman, 2012) (Bromley, 1994;Paschall et al, 2011;Van Dyke & Tester, 2014) • Public versus private (Damewood, 2019;Kaasa et al, 2016;Moylan et al, 2019;Oriol et al, 2019;Wiersma-Mosley et al, 2017) (Ford, 2017;Graham et al, 2019Graham et al, , 2020Mohler-Kuo et al, 2004;Paschall et al, 2011 (Fernandez & Lizotte, 1995;Fox & Hellman, 1985;Sloan, 1994;Stotzer & Hossellman, 2012) (McPheters, 1978…”

Sexual Violence Prevention Among Intercollegiate Athletes, Recreational Athletes, and Non-Athletes: Environmental Considerations for Program Interventions

“…The present study found gender and sexual orientation to be the strongest predictors of SV protective factors amongst other demographics, and should be considered throughout program design. Women and queer students are more likely to be assaulted; therefore, they have a greater inclination to be receptive to gender-segregated program design (de Heer & Jones, 2017;Rogers & Rogers, 2020). Prior research has indicated gender-segregated training appears more effective (Anderson & Whiston, 2005;Berkowitz, 2002;Jackson & Davis, 2000), as men can become more defensive on topics of SV in the presence of women (Brecklin & Forde, 2001;Rozee & Koss, 2001).…”

“…Gender and sexual orientation demographic variables had the greatest effect on all outcomes and are considered salient identities in the context of SV prevention education (de Heer & Jones, 2017; Rogers & Rogers, 2020). Prior studies on gender and sexual minorities demonstrated certain populations of queer students, gay men, bisexual women, and especially transgender people are at an increased risk of SV on college campuses (Cantor et al, 2020;Johnson et al, 2016) and, therefore, may be more sensitive to social norms regarding SV.…”

“…A student's year in school has been linked to a prevalence of SV (Rogers & Rogers, 2020) such that first-year students are at a higher rate for victimization (Adams-Curtis & Forbes, 2004). While academic year was found to be a significant predictor of campus social norms, it was not significant of bystander efficacy.…”