“Serious enough”? A mixed-method examination of the minimization of sexual assault as a service barrier for college sexual assault survivors.

Abstract

Objective: Sexual assault is pervasive on college campuses, but survivors rarely use formal supports. A frequent reason that survivors do not use supports is the belief that the assault was not "serious enough." Our convergent parallel mixed method study examined the causes and consequences of minimization as a service barrier. We used qualitative interviews to examine the manifestation and impact of minimization in survivors' lives. We used quantitative surveys to examine whether minimization differed across four formal supports (Campus Police, Title IX Office, Counseling Center, Victim Advocate) and survivor characteristics (assault type, assault acknowledgment, race/ethnicity, sexuality), and the associations between minimization and mental health outcomes. Method: We collected survey data from 93 survivors and 40 semistructured interviews. Results: Our qualitative thematic analysis suggested that minimization does not occur in a vacuum (e.g., minimization of sexual assault by society, peer groups, and resources fosters survivors' own minimization). There were few significant differences in minimization across survivor characteristics or type of formal support, but there was a trend that minimization was somewhat lower among survivors who experienced completed rape (vs. other forms) and labeled the assault (vs. unacknowledged survivors). Minimization occurred even when survivors experienced adverse mental health outcomes. Conclusions: Findings illustrated connections between social and institutional discourse around sexual assault (e.g., what is seen as "severe") and minimization. Survivors' endorsement of minimization as a reason they did not use formal supports does not reflect the consequences of the assault on survivors' wellbeing. Interventions to reduce service barriers should address minimization.

Does a report = support? A qualitative analysis of college sexual assault survivors’ Title IX Office knowledge, perceptions, and experiences

“…All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board. Currently, there are four publications using these data (Holland et al., 2021a; 2020; 2021b; in press), and this paper contributes novel information about survivors’ interactions with the Title IX Office. The Title IX Office at the institution where the current study was conducted was overseen by a Title IX Coordinator and staffed several Title IX Investigators.…”

“…The sample for the current study was a subsample of students recruited from a larger mixed methods project examining cis‐straight and LGBTQ sexual assault survivors’ support seeking (for more details on the project and recruitment procedures see Holland et al., 2021). Inclusion criteria included (a) age 17 or older, (b) current undergraduate at the university, (c) plan to enroll the following semester, and (d) had an unwanted sexual experience while attending the university.…”

Severe and Pervasive? Consequences of Sexual Harassment for Graduate Students and their Title IX Report Outcomes

“…Universities must combat the stereotype that some types of sexual harassment are “not that bad,” not only because it hinders survivors from reporting (Hlavka, 2014; Holland & Cortina, 2017; Holland et al, 2021), but also because it may affect Title IX practitioners’ decision-making when survivors do report. To combat this, universities should institute trainings for Title IX staff that explicitly refute stereotypes about sexual harassment and assault and center survivors’ experiences in describing why all forms of sexual harassment are harmful and have the potential to severely limit survivors’ educations.…”

“Terrifying and Exhausting”: Secondary Victimization in Title IX Proceedings at U.S. Higher Education Institutions

“…This appears to be an extension of what Holland et al (2021) described as "minimization barriers" in their study on student decisions reporting to Title IX officessurvivors being reluctant to report because they worried their assaults did not qualify as "severe enough." The extension of this phenomenon to student experiences with the Title IX process itself speaks to a parallel between the initial sexual trauma that the Holland et al (2021) study examined and the trauma of the Title IX process explored in this study. It also provides a potential explanation for the Fisher et al (2016) results: if complainants minimize how poorly their schools treat them, it makes sense that complainants could call their Title IX offices useful despite having a negative experience.…”

“…Limited research exists on how students going through Title IX processes at higher education institutions experience secondary victimization. Holland et al (2021) found that students identified several barriers to reporting assaults, ranging from minimizing their experiences to social-emotional barriers, though the article's discussion of minimization focused on the victimization in survivors minimizing assaults themselves. Lorenz et al (2022) examined positive and negative elements of survivor reporting experiences to Title IX offices but overlooked respondents and the role of perceived bias in student feelings.…”