The Sexual Victimization of College Students: A Test of Routine Activity Theory

Abstract

This study examines the applicability of theoretically-relevant routine activity variables to understand the risk of sexual victimization among college students. Analyses assess if routine activity-related variables have similar explanatory power for rape and sexual assault. Indicators of “proximity to motivated offenders” and “exposure to crime” were associated with rape. Indicators related to “proximity to motivated offenders,” “exposure to crime,” and “target attractiveness” were associated with sexual assault. Indicators capturing “guardianship” were not associated with either rape or sexual assault. Theoretical implications and directions for future research are discussed. Specifically, it is possible to theory-test using campus climate survey instruments.

Social, Economic and Human Capital: Risk or Protective Factors in Sexual Violence?

“…A capable guardian is understood as any person or thing that discourages the possibility of committing a crime. In this sense, neighboring networks could constitute a guardian capable of discouraging the possibility of committing sexual violence [ 69 ].…”

Reproductive Coercion Among College Students: An Extension and Test of Routine Activity Theory

“…First, respondents were asked about their current marital status; if they were married or in an exclusive dating relationship, they were coded as being in an exclusive relationship (1 = yes ; 0 = no ). If respondents noted they were single, divorced, widowed, separated, dating multiple people, or “friends with benefits or hooking up,” they were not considered to currently be in an exclusive relationship (Cass, 2007; Fisher et al, 2010; Hayes et al, 2021). Enrollment status was included as a dichotomous measure (1 = full-time student ; 0 = part-time student ) based on student self-identification (Cass, 2007; Hayes et al, 2021).…”

“…If respondents noted they were single, divorced, widowed, separated, dating multiple people, or “friends with benefits or hooking up,” they were not considered to currently be in an exclusive relationship (Cass, 2007; Fisher et al, 2010; Hayes et al, 2021). Enrollment status was included as a dichotomous measure (1 = full-time student ; 0 = part-time student ) based on student self-identification (Cass, 2007; Hayes et al, 2021). The number of days on campus was included as a continuous item (range = 1–7 days; Cass, 2007).…”

“…Studies employing routine activity theory often include measures that explain one's victimization as a product of their exposure to crime, proximity to motivated offenders, target attractiveness, or lack of capable guardianship (e.g., Franklin et al, 2012; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002). Extant scholarship has demonstrated that routine activities are associated with both IPV (Hayes, 2018; 2022) and forms of sexual violence, including nonconsensual sexual contact (Fisher et al, 2010; Franklin et al, 2012; Hayes et al, 2021; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002; Schwartz et al, 2001; Schwartz & Pitts, 1995), sexual harassment (Clodfelter et al, 2010; De Coster et al, 1999), and online sexual victimization (Holt et al, 2016). Many prevention efforts on college campus center on aspects of routine activity theory—bystander intervention programs (i.e., presence of a guardian), efforts to reduce binge drinking (i.e., augment target suitability), or challenging norms around fraternities (i.e., recognizing offender motivation is tied to group norms).…”

“…Others have also found that behaviorally bisexual women are at an increased risk of reproductive coercion (Alexander et al, 2016). Indeed, when this item has been considered in prior scholarship on the application of routine activity theory to sexual violence, it has been a robust measure (Hayes et al, 2021; Hayes & Maher, 2023; Snyder, 2015; Sutton et al, 2021). As suggested by Sween and Reyns (2017), sexual orientation may be related to the target congruence framework in terms of offender perceptions of target antagonism (i.e., behaviors or identities that enhance anger, hostility, jealousy, or resentment within the offender) or target gratification (i.e., the potential victim has characteristics that the offender wants to use, have access to, or manipulate), thereby enhancing perceptions of target suitability (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996).…”