research paper sexual assault on campus

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Prevention of sexual violence among college students: Current challenges and future directions

Erin e. bonar.

a Addiction Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

b Injury Prevention Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Sarah DeGue

c Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA

Antonia Abbey

d Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

Ann L. Coker

e Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

Christine H. Lindquist

f Division for Applied Justice Research, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

Heather L. McCauley

g School of Social Work, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Elizabeth Miller

h Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh & Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Charlene Y. Senn

i Department of Psychology and Women’s & Gender Studies Program, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada

Martie P. Thompson

j Department of Psychology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA

Quyen M. Ngo

k Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Rebecca M. Cunningham

l School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Maureen A Walton

Preventing sexual violence among college students is a public health priority. This paper was catalyzed by a summit convened in 2018 to review the state of the science on campus sexual violence prevention. We summarize key risk and vulnerability factors and campus-based interventions, and provide directions for future research pertaining to campus sexual violence.

Results and Conclusions:

Although studies have identified risk factors for campus sexual violence, longitudinal research is needed to examine time-varying risk factors across social ecological levels (individual, relationship, campus context/broader community and culture) and data are particularly needed to identify protective factors. In terms of prevention, promising individual and relational level interventions exist, including active bystander, resistance, and gender transformative approaches; however, further evidence-based interventions are needed, particularly at the community-level, with attention to vulnerability factors and inclusion for marginalized students.

Introduction

Sexual violence remains a critical public health concern for students attending colleges and universities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines sexual violence as “a sexual act that is committed or attempted by another person without freely given consent of the victim or against someone who is unable to consent or refuse.” 1 (p.11) Such acts range from non-contact unwanted experiences (e.g., verbal sexual harassment) to forced penetration. The current paper generally focuses on contact-related behaviors. Unwanted sexual touching is the most prevalent form of campus sexual violence experienced by college students, followed by incapacitated (i.e., due to drugs/alcohol) rape, and attempted forced rape. 2 A clear understanding of the scope of this problem is hindered by: 1) use of official statistics to estimate its magnitude, as there is underreporting of sexual violence to campus authorities, 2) variation in definitions and measures of sexual violence in self-report surveys 3 – 7 , and 3) missing data on surveys. 8 Nonetheless, a recent review suggested that prevalence of sexual violence victimization on college campuses is approximately 5% for men and 25% for women. 8 These rates remain comparable to what has been found since researchers began systematically measuring college women’s self-reported victimization in the 1980s. 9

College students are an important focus for sexual violence prevention as 18 to 24 year-old females have the highest rate of sexual violence victimization compared to females of other ages 10 and 81.3% of female victims experience a first rape before age 25. 11 The college context positions students to be at risk through decreased parental monitoring, increased alcohol use, increased sexual activity, and exposure to peer norms about sexual violence. 12 , 13 Thus, sexual violence affects many college students, takes place in a high risk context of increasing independence and risk behaviors, and can result in many negative sequelae (e.g., psychiatric distress, academic problems). 14 – 16

It is critical to provide appropriate support for survivors 6 while also engaging in upstream prevention approaches to eliminate sexual violence. In 2018 the University of Michigan Injury Prevention Center hosted a day-long event titled, the “Summit on the Prevention of Campus Sexual Assault.” The purpose of this summit was to better understand the state of campus sexual violence prevention science and to identify next steps for prevention under a public health model. Leaders in the field presented research data pertaining to sexual violence prevention for college students across levels of the social ecology. 17 Presentations focused on the public health framework for prevention, risk factors for campus sexual violence based on experimental and survey research, special considerations for marginalized students (i.e., sexual and gender minorities, racial/ethnic minorities), and evidence-based prevention programs delivered on campuses and in college communities. Interactions occurring during this summit catalyzed this subsequent summary paper, which included summaries provided by speaker authors, supplemented by additional literature. Key video excerpts are available on the University of Michigan Injury Prevention Center’s website: https://injurycenter.umich.edu/event/summit-on-the-prevention-of-campus-sexual-assault/ .

Several recent reviews summarize the sexual violence literature, many including college students, focusing on: prevention programs, 18 – 22 violence against women, 23 risk factors for victimization and perpetration in college and general populations, 24 – 27 and, specifically, male-targeted sexual violence programs. 28 Reviews specific to campus sexual violence prevention have focused on topics such as campus response/policy 29 or more narrowly on prevalence, 2 , 5 or bystander programs, 19 , 20 with a notable exception addressing prevalence, prevention, response, and policy, broadly. 30 In light of these prior reviews and given the Summit’s focus, this paper broadly highlights key research findings to inform current campus sexual violence prevention efforts under a social ecological framework while recognizing that factors at a given level of the social ecology may also exert influence across levels. First, we summarize risk factors at the individual, relationship, and community levels, with particular attention to vulnerability among marginalized students (i.e., racial/ethnic minority students, LGBTQ students). Second, we describe key interventions across these levels. Finally, we provide directions for next steps in sexual violence prevention research and practice for colleges and universities, highlighting key technical packages. 31 – 33

Understanding risk factors for perpetration and victimization

To prevent sexual violence among college students, it is important to understand risk factors for perpetration and victimization identified in studies using survey and experimental research designs, across individual, relationship, and community levels. Note that although individual behaviors contribute to victimization risk when a perpetrator is present, sexual violence is never the fault of the victim as it cannot occur without a perpetrator.

Individual level risk factors

Individual level risk factors described here are summarized in Table 1 . Data suggest that men are more likely to perpetrate sexual violence with research lacking on risk factors for female perpetration, likely given the low rates of this behavior. 34 , 35 For men, risk factors for sexual violence perpetration with strong support include prior perpetration, sexual behaviors (e.g., multiple sexual partners, impersonal sex, motivation for sex, exposure to sexual media), and sexual- and violence-related cognitions (e.g., hostility toward women, hypermasculinity, rape myth acceptance). 24 Consistent with a prior review, 24 one recent study found that 19% of men reported sexual violence perpetration before college, with risk factors including sexual media consumption, alcohol misuse, and hypermasculinity. 36 Longitudinal research of sexual violence perpetration is infrequent, yet existing literature suggests that risk factors for perpetration, such as hostile masculinity, rape supportive beliefs, and pornography exposure, can change over the college years, and that these changes are associated with changes in the likelihood of sexual violence. 37 – 39 Studies also suggest protective factors that buffer against sexual violence perpetration. For example, empathy, an individual level construct, may be protective via moderating the relationship between some risk factors (e.g., perceived peer approval of forced sex, high risk drinking) and sexual violence perpetration. 40 Another study found that college men who felt they learned from committing prior sexual violence and felt remorse were less likely to perpetrate again within one year. In contrast, men who spoke about women in callous ways were more likely to perpetrate over time. 41

Summary of individual-level risk factors for sexual violence perpetration and victimization discussed

In addition to female sex, research suggests several individual risk factors for sexual violence victimization including indicators of lower socio-economic status (e.g., difficulty paying for basic needs). 15 , 35 Further, one study of college women found that over half of sexual violence cases occur in the context of victim and/or perpetrator intoxication 42 supporting acute intoxication as a risk factor. 24 Emerging research also suggests that sexual violence victimization in the year before college entry relates to increased hazardous drinking during the first year of college 43 which can further increase risk.

Consistent with these surveys, experimental studies provide clues about risk factors for perpetration. 44 , 45 Given the extensive literature linking alcohol consumption with sexual violence perpetration, 46 alcohol is the most frequently manipulated variable in laboratory studies. 27 Typically, men are randomly assigned to consume non-alcoholic or alcoholic beverages and are asked to read, listen to, or watch a sexual violence scenario before answering questions about how they would think, feel, and act in that situation. Compared to sober men, intoxicated men often have higher scores on measures of the woman’s sexual arousal and their own sexual arousal, anger, belief that the woman “owed them” sex, perceptions that the man in the scenario acted appropriately, and willingness to act similarly in that situation. 47 – 51 Men higher in hostility and sexual dominance are the most likely to respond in a sexually aggressive manner when intoxicated. 52 , 53 Thus, the effects of alcohol on cognitive processing appear to increase the likelihood that a man who is predisposed to be sexually aggressive will act in such a manner when intoxicated.

Beyond these general risk factors, marginalized students may differ in their experience of sexual violence vulnerability; thus, we highlight key topics of race and ethnicity and gender and sexual diversity below.

Racial and Ethnic Minority Students.

The association between race/ethnicity and risk of sexual violence victimization is complex given that the socio-historical context of race in the United States has had a long-standing impact on the economic, social, and health consequences experienced by marginalized communities. Racial categories intersect and are influenced by other variables across levels of social ecology (e.g., socioeconomic status, campus environments, cultural norms, alcohol consumption), the unique effects of which are difficult to isolate. Measurement differences across studies increase this complexity. Although small numbers make precise estimates difficult, American Indian/Alaska Native students appear to experience higher rates of sexual violence than other students. 54 Asian and Pacific Islander students appear to be at lowest risk. 55 , 56 One study found that Latino students (the largest minority group enrolled in U.S. post-secondary institutions 57 ) had lower rates of victimization than White students. 55 However, another study found generally comparable rates for Hispanic (12.2%) and non-Hispanic (11.6%) students, 56 making it difficult to discern a consistent pattern.

Regarding Black students (the second largest minority group in U.S. post-secondary institutions 57 ) results are mixed. One study found that they had higher odds of past-year sexual violence compared to White students, 55 another found comparable rates for White and Black students, 56 and others have reported lower rates for Black students compared to White students. 9 Data from the Campus Sexual Assault study (conducted at two traditionally White public universities), and a similar study at four Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), suggest that racial differences in alcohol consumption and the extent to which survey questions account for alcohol-related incapacitation may clarify these inconsistencies. HBCU undergraduate women, versus those at non-HBCUs, had lower rates of incapacitated sexual violence (and overall sexual violence) yet comparable rates of physically forced sexual violence since entering college. 58 This difference appeared to be due to lower alcohol consumption among Black women (not unique factors of HBCUs), because no differences in sexual violence were found between Black women attending HBCUs and non-HBCUs and alcohol consumption was lower for Black women across school type. 58 Therefore, measurement nuances, particularly whether surveys query sexual violence when incapacitated due to substances, are important when attempting to understand racial/ethnic differences. Survey questions that do not assess sexual violence when incapacitated due to substances may undercount such experiences, producing estimates that primarily reflect physically-forced incidents.

Sexual and Gender Minority Students.

Sexual and gender minority college students are at elevated risk for sexual violence victimization prior to 59 , 60 and during college, 12 , 56 , 60 , 61 compared with heterosexual and cisgender students. Bisexual students experience disproportionate risk, with more than a quarter reporting sexual violence victimization, compared to 14% of gay and lesbian students and 11% of heterosexual students. 56 Students with multiple marginalized identities experience elevated victimization risk. A recent National College Health Assessment study found that Black transgender students had the highest predicted probability of sexual violence (58%) compared to the Latino (27%) and White (14%) transgender students. 55

Numerous social and contextual factors shape vulnerability to sexual violence among sexual and gender minority students. They often experience discrimination related to these aspects of their identities, 62 – 64 which fuels violence perpetration against them, 65 fosters feelings of internalized homonegativity 66 – 68 and hinders disclosure of victimization. 69 Social norms and attitudes also shape these students’ vulnerability to sexual violence. For example, bisexual students confront sexual objectification, 70 pressure to “prove” their sexuality, 71 and cultural narratives of hypersexuality. 70 These experiences are compounded by potential exclusion from both heterosexual and queer communities, 70 , 72 which makes care-seeking difficult. Male-identified survivors of sexual violence may be silenced by hypermasculinity norms that are incongruent with narratives of survivors as feminine and defenseless. 69 , 73 , 74 Such barriers are compounded for gay and bisexual male survivors, who face pressures to conform to hegemonic masculine norms. 75

Relationship level risk factors

Relationship level risk factors described here are summarized in Table 2 . Risk factors for sexual violence perpetration at the relationship level include all male peer affiliation. 24 A meta-analysis suggested that males’ athletic and fraternity involvement increases risk for sexual violence supportive attitudes and perpetration. 76 As influenced via peer relationships, perceptions of peer attitudes and behaviors (e.g., peer approval of forced sex, peer sexual aggression, peer pressure for sex) are also associated with perpetration. 24 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 77 Longitudinal research shows that as perceptions of peer approval of forced sex and sexual coercion increase, so does likelihood of perpetration, whereas decreases in rape supportive peer norms are associated with a declining trajectory of perpetration. 38 , 39 Peer norms have also been manipulated in lab-based experiments, in which men are asked to select a film clip (sexually aggressive or not) to show to a confederate woman whom they believe is another study participant. Men are more likely to choose the sexually aggressive film when they are randomly assigned to first watch another man (a confederate) choose the film clip. 78 In simulated bystander situations, men randomly assigned to hear male confederates objectifying women are less likely to stop a female confederate’s exposure to a sexual video, as compared to men assigned to hear neutral statements about women. 79 Being in a casual or committed relationship (vs. single) is associated with more sexually aggressive behaviors among college men, particularly for those using alcohol prior to sex. 80 At the family relationship-level, pre-college factors such as child abuse and exposure to parental violence are risk factors for perpetration. 24

Summary of relationship-level risk factors for sexual violence perpetration and victimization discussed

Social situations involving drinking peers are important risk factors for perpetration and victimization. In lab studies 81 , 82 , intoxication can reduce bystanders’ recognition of dangerous situations. In surveys, alcohol consumption is associated with lower likelihood of bystander intervention. 83 , 84 Regarding victimization risk, being in a dating relationship confers risk as a large portion of sexual violence occurs with dating partners. For example, a recent study of 361 students found that 35% had experienced sexual violence from a dating partner 85 and that exposure to deviant peers (e.g., involved in crime) was associated with attempted rapes. Recent research has also identified meeting potential partners via dating apps and having “hook-up” type relationships as risk factors for victimization, 15 , 86 with more research needed to understand what factors drive these associations (e.g., are individuals who use dating apps also more likely to perpetrate sexual violence?). Prior victimization is a risk factor for future victimization as well. 15 , 35 Related to re-victimization, positive peer norms about hook-ups are associated with re-victimization among college women with prior sexual violence victimization. 87 Fraternity/sorority involvement is also a relationship-level risk factor for victimization. 15

Community, contextual, and institutional level risk factors

Given that sexual violence reporting rates vary across institutions, 56 an emerging focus in prevention-related research involves identifying risk factors at the campus and/or community level. 24 , 88 , 89 Such risk factors are typically measured via locations/policies related to alcohol consumption (e.g., drinking settings) that increase risk for sexual violence, individual perceptions of campus climate (e.g., inclusivity), and institutional characteristics (e.g., public vs. private). Research using these proxy-measures for community level factors provide direction for community-level interventions to address risk for sexual violence via policy, environmental changes, or institution-wide practices to change the culture of the campus and/or students’ broader community. To begin, although data from the National Crime Victimization Survey indicate that most incidents of female sexual violence victimization among college students occur at or near their home (38%) or the home of someone they know (29%), 10 campus environments that facilitate high-risk drinking are associated with increased risk. Longitudinal research shows that college men’s attendance in high risk drinking settings (bars/parties) is associated with perpetration. 90 A recent study from two New York campuses found that in cases of incapacitated sexual violence victimization, about half of women had just been at a party with the perpetrator before the event (versus 15.8% for non-incapacitated victimization), and nearly half (46.5%) said the incident occurred in a dorm (fraternity house: 10.5%; off-campus party/bar: 14.9%; other location: 28.9%). 86 Next, while athletic and Greek life involvement are identified as relationship-level risk factors, particularly because they are associated with attitudes that predict sexual violence perpetration (e.g., hypermasculinity, rape myth acceptance 76 ), more research is needed to clarify which types of events and/or features of the environment of these communities (e.g., parties, formal events) affect risk. 89

Second, while research documents elevated risk among sexual and gender minority students, 12 , 56 , 60 , 61 , 91 studies examining community-level factors, such as how campus climates may drive these disparities, are lacking. Studies using proxy-measures of campus inclusivity, namely sexual and gender minority students’ perceptions, provide clues to inform campus-level prevention interventions. For example, among students from 478 higher education institutions, perceived inclusivity of sexual and gender minority people on campus was associated with significantly lower odds of sexual violence for these individuals. 92 Inclusive climates may operate by reducing perpetration against sexual and gender minority students, increasing bystander intervention, or empowering students to use harm reduction strategies. 92

Finally, several studies examined institutional characteristics in order to infer community-level factors. One study found that institutional characteristics (public/private, 2-/4-year; metro/non-metro location) were not significantly associated with perpetration rates, 34 whereas another found significant differences with a relatively small magnitude (e.g., higher victimization rates at small vs. large, and private vs. public institutions). 56 Another study found that geographic region is associated with increased risk in some cases (e.g., Midwestern and Southern vs. Northeastern campuses), as was campus size (10,000–20,000 students versus <2,500), while research institutions had lower rates than bachelor’s institutions. 93 This study also identified several student body features associated with campus sexual violence rates, including higher campus-wide binge drinking rates, lower proportions of heterosexual students and higher proportions of younger students and females, higher number of sexual partners, and greater proportions reporting discrimination.

As most studies examine traditional universities, research is needed to examine community college characteristics (e.g., frequent evening classes, commuter factors such as walking to parking lots). Recent data from seven northeastern U.S. community colleges (N=800 students) suggest concerning rates of sexual violence victimization since enrollment (11% victimized via unwanted sexual contact, coercion, attempted and completed rape; 48% when including sexual harassment, relationship violence, stalking, etc.). 94 Students who were female, sexual and racial minorities, and under age 26 were more likely to report any victimization. 94 These data highlight unique characteristics of community colleges, which may reflect physical environments and/or differences in programs or policies related to sexual violence requiring further study.

Future directions

Table 3 summarizes future directions for research in regarding risk factors for campus sexual violence based on gaps in the above literature. These include: (1) conducting additional longitudinal studies including time-varying risk factors and evaluating victimization and perpetration trajectories for students of all genders; (2) using a developmental lens to examine malleable risk factors (e.g., alcohol consumption, peer norms), that can change during college; and (3) focusing on understudied risk factors at the community and contextual levels (e.g., physical and social/contextual environment), including in community colleges. Understanding community-level factors could inform implementation of effective prevention strategies across levels of the social ecology, particularly for marginalized students. Further, given variations in risk across sexual, gender, and racial/ethnic minority sub-groups, more research is needed to better understand how sexual violence manifests in these marginalized groups to inform prevention. We note that specific racial/ethnic groups should not be presumed to be at higher or lower risk without more consistent evidence. Further, students with disabilities comprise another marginalized population warranting future attention, given research suggesting that individuals with disabilities experience increased risk for sexual violence. 95 , 96

Summary of next steps for future research pertaining to risk factors and interventions

Finally, regarding experimental work, researchers are developing virtual reality paradigms which may allow for more nuanced and realistic responses. 97 , 98 The peer studies above demonstrate how constructs under consideration for interventions could be piloted in experimental studies. Some researchers find unexpected, harmful effects with high-risk individuals, hardening their attitudes when presented with messages intended to challenge beliefs about women or masculinity. 99 , 100 Thus, using experimental paradigms with updated technology to pilot potential prevention interventions may help identify and avoid unintended negative consequences.

Efficacious and Promising Prevention Programs

A remaining gap in campus sexual violence prevention work involves needing to expand and implement efficacious prevention approaches addressing risk for perpetration and victimization across genders and levels of the social ecology. Few approaches have been rigorously evaluated in college populations (i.e., with well-controlled designs, such as randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) and shown to reduce sexual victimization or perpetration or sexual violence risk factors. 18 , 19 , 22 We highlight key programs below targeting different levels of the social ecology (although some inherently address multiple levels).

Individual level

Few prevention programs focusing on sexual violence by potential perpetrators in college populations have strong evidence of effectiveness in reducing men’s perpetration behavior, with two promising exceptions. 101 , 102 RealConsent is an interactive, web-based program designed for college-age men to increase prosocial intervening behaviors, change attitudes and normative beliefs about sex, rape, and masculine gender roles, and increasing knowledge of consent. An RCT found that RealConsent was effective in decreasing sexual violence perpetration and increasing positive bystander behavior over 6 months. Similarly, the group-based Sexual Assault Prevention Program (1.5 hour program, 1 hour booster) which seeks to increase men’s empathy about sexual violence, decrease rape myth acceptance, increase consent knowledge, promote bystander intervention, and reduce normative misperceptions holds promise. 103 In addition to demonstrating efficacy on several risk factors (e.g., exposure to sexual media), relative to a control group, program recipients were less likely to perpetrate sexual violence over 4-months.

Other interventions focus on changing individual-level attitudes and behaviors to reduce the victimization risk 18 by teaching women how to recognize threat and bolstering self-efficacy to use self-defense strategies. 104 – 110 Few individual-focused programs demonstrate sustained behavioral outcomes. The Enhanced Assess, Acknowledge, Act (EAAA) Sexual Assault Resistance program 105 is a notable exception that also includes curricula on positive sexuality. Designed for women of all sexual identities, based on feminist and social psychological theory 111 , 112 and prior research, 113 – 115 EAAA includes four group sessions delivered by female facilitators to: 1) decrease the time needed to assess a situation as dangerous and take action, 2) reduce emotional obstacles to taking the action necessary to get away, and 3) maximize use of verbal and physical self-defense tactics most likely to be effective. The program script asserts that perpetrators are entirely responsible for their behavior. After pilot studies showed promise, 116 – 118 a multi-site RCT 106 showed that EAAA increased women’s perception of their risk of acquaintance rape, knowledge, self-efficacy, and willingness to use self-defense strategies in hypothetical situations. EAAA also reduced the relative risk of attempted and completed rape (non-consensual oral, vaginal, or anal penetration) by 50% in the year following participation, as well as non-penetrative sexual violence. Program benefits persisted at least two years later. 107 Despite concern that programs for women may inadvertently increase perceptions of women’s responsibility for sexual violence, 119 participation in EAAA led to sustained decreases in rape myth acceptance and beliefs in female provocation or responsibility for rape. 107 The program worked both for rape survivors and women with no prior rape experience, and decreased self-blame if women were raped after EAAA. 120 A multi-site implementation study of EAAA is underway in Canada.

As called for in a recent review, 16 comprehensive prevention strategies should target multiple settings and risk factors, 121 with campus healthcare settings being important locations (e.g., health centers, counseling centers, Emergency Departments), potentially due to the medical and mental health consequences of sexual violence. 14 – 16 , 122 , 123 Therefore, we highlight ongoing work using a cluster RCT testing a brief trauma-informed, harm reduction intervention to reduce risk for alcohol-related sexual violence among male and female students receiving care from 28 college health centers. 124 The Giving Information for Trauma Support and Safety (GIFTS) intervention is being compared to a brief alcohol risk reduction counseling intervention. GIFTS uses a palm-size safety card with information about sexual violence and provides: (a) education and assessment regarding sexual violence (regardless of disclosure); (b) discussion of harm reduction behaviors to reduce risk of alcohol-related sexual violence for self and peers (including bystander intervention); and (c) supported referrals to survivor services. GIFTS builds on a growing evidence-base demonstrating effectiveness of survivor-centered clinic-based interventions in increasing recognition of abusive behaviors, knowledge of resources, and self-efficacy to enact harm reduction strategies, and among specific populations, reducing physical, sexual, and cyber relationship abuse victimization and reproductive coercion. 125 – 127 Although primarily targeted at the individual level as primary prevention, GIFTS is also intended to amplify campus prevention efforts by encouraging students who have witnessed sexual violence, to be more likely to intervene to interrupt a peer’s harmful behaviors and to provide support to peers who have been harmed. As secondary prevention, students with prior sexual violence exposure receiving GIFTS are expected to be more likely to disclose sexual violence during their clinic visit and report greater use of sexual violence-related services. 124

Relationship level

Bystander training addresses the relationship level of the social ecology by training individuals to intervene with others when they witness sexual violence or behaviors that increase sexual violence risk, such as use of sexist or objectifying language, endorsement of violence-supportive attitudes, or violence risk behaviors (e.g., heavy alcohol use). Engaged bystander programs seek to decrease sexual violence acceptance and build skills to increase bystander actions that can reduce sexual violence. As such, when well-implemented across a community (i.e., college campus), bystander programs can change perceived social norms around violence and encourage both men and women to take action to prevent it. The Campus SaVE legislation required training on college campuses that teaches “safe and positive bystander intervention that may be carried out by an individual to prevent harm or intervene” when there is a risk of violence. 128 A number of bystander programs have focused on men and women (e.g., Green Dot, 129 – 131 Bringing in the Bystander, 132 – 134 Know Your Power 135 ), while others use sex-specific training [e.g., the Men’s Program 136 – 138 and Women’s Program 139 , 140 ]. 21 Rigorously evaluated and effective bystander programs for colleges include Bringing in the Bystander 132 , 134 , 141 and Green Dot 129 – 131 ; we specifically highlight Green Dot below, as it was presented in our prevention Summit.

The Green Dot program for colleges and high schools includes two phases: 1) a 50-minute motivational speech including definitions of sexual violence, its frequency, risk factors, and opportunities for prevention and intervention, designed for delivery to all students at a campus; and, 2) an intensive, interactive skill development bystander training, ideally delivered in groups of 20–25 over 4–6 hours using a Peer Opinion Leaders strategy (e.g., training by those whom others emulate or respect). For college students, Green Dot significantly reduced sexual violence acceptance and increased active bystander behaviors relative to those who did not receive Green Dot. 129 One college campus using Green Dot, relative to two with no bystander program, had significantly lower rates of sexual violence accounted for by a reduction in alcohol- or drug-facilitated sexual violence. 131 Similarly, over 4 years, rates of sexual violence were 25% lower in the Green Dot campus versus the two with no bystander program 131 ; this was primarily accounted for by reduced alcohol- and drug-facilitated sexual violence. This program also reduced sexual harassment, stalking, and psychological dating violence victimization and perpetration. 130 , 131

Community level

To date, no community-level interventions for campus sexual violence have been rigorously tested. A review 18 of over 140 sexual violence prevention programs (not restricted to college campuses) found that very few (<10%) addressed campus climate or policies. A study 142 of 24 four-year colleges in Georgia, found that only 14% had policies and practices that met compliance criteria for the Clery Act in 2014. Policies varied widely across institutions, despite increased public attention and federal guidance surrounding campus sexual violence after a 2011 Dear Colleague letter from the Department of Education.

Future Directions

Table 3 summarizes future directions for research on prevention interventions, based on gaps in the literature above. More research is needed to continue identifying effective primary prevention programming for campus sexual violence. Although bystander programs are effective at changing bystander attitudes and behaviors, 129 , 132 , 134 bystanders are present in few situations where sexual violence directly occurs (no more than 17%). 143 Combining bystander programs with programs helping students build knowledge and skills to intervene on their own behalf is warranted. 144 – 147 Similarly, programs targeting high-risk groups that address norms related to masculinity and sexual aggression in addition to bystander training may be suitable for college settings. For example, the coach-delivered Coaching Boys Into Men program for male athletes, was efficacious among middle school students in increasing bystander behaviors and decreasing relationship violence among those with a history of dating. In addition to potentially adapting such programs for college campus delivery, there is a need to examine whether the effects of this and other early prevention programs persist into the college years. 148 Next, implementation research that seeks to implement and identify essential elements of efficacious programs (e.g., using dismantling designs 149 ) and optimal program dose, across specific settings (e.g., dorms, online, classroom; community colleges, commuter or residential schools) and populations, would be an important contribution. Conducting cost-effectiveness analyses of efficacious programs can help ensure that prevention resources are well-utilized, and can assist communities in making informed implementation decisions. Collecting cost-related data during an evaluation can permit such analyses with limited need for additional resources. Finally, research identifying optimal implementation and dissemination strategies for efficacious programs is needed. Although a challenging task, evaluating comprehensive prevention strategies that include combining evidenced-based programming with broader initiatives to improve campus climate for marginalized students (e.g., programs that enhance inclusivity for sexual and gender minorities such as those targeting micro-aggressions, tailored prevention services for minority students at higher risk), could move the field forward.

As a limitation of the field, prior interventions often focused on men’s perpetration of sexual violence toward (presumably heterosexual) women, with future studies needed to enhance prevention for gender and sexual minorities. Moreover, research is needed regarding male victims of sexual violence who often have few resources and potentially more stigma (e.g. rape myths around male victims), and female perpetrators of sexual violence who are rarely studied (e.g., risk factors, motivations). 35 , 150 – 152 This gap could be addressed by qualitative work to better understand and broaden our understanding of gendered risk factors. Programming that better accounts for gendered risk factors is also needed, as gender-neutral programs may not sufficiently address well-established risk factors associated with traditional masculinity. 24 , 36 Further, given the variation in risk for sexual violence victimization for marginalized students, existing data can be used for sub-group analyses to inform tailoring programs for specific student populations. Few existing interventions are designed for marginalized populations specifically, 18 yet programs may be more effective when tailored to cultural beliefs and norms. 153 , 154

Finally, prior prevention programs generally fall within inner levels of the social ecology—addressing individual and relationship risk factors—with little known about what works at the community level. Individual-level efforts must be accompanied by universal, campus-wide efforts in partnership with the local community to make the college experience safer for all students, including vulnerable populations by addressing institutional and structural factors (e.g., racism, homophobia) that enhance risk. Alcohol policies on and off-campus can help mitigate sexual violence for students. 31 , 155 Engaging alcohol outlets by providing bystander training for bar staff has improved their positive bystander intentions and could benefit from research examining long-term outcomes. 156 Campus efforts to support equity across genders and marginalized identities via increasing representation amongst faculty and leadership can promote an inclusive campus culture. 31 Investing in programs (e.g. SafeZone 157 ) for sexual and gender minority students, and bolstering campus enforcement of sexual violence and anti-discrimination policies to be responsive to the lived experiences of sexual and gender minority students and other marginalized students, could be an important part of community-level interventions. Finally, it is noteworthy that an efficacious building-level program for middle school students that involved hot-spot mapping and intervention, Shifting Boundaries, 158 is currently being adapted for college campuses and could yield promising results.

Summary and Directions for Future Research

There is broad agreement that a comprehensive approach is necessary to prevent campus sexual violence. 31 , 121 , 159 , 160 Such an approach should address multiple goals including: changing societal attitudes regarding the continuum of behaviors that comprise sexual violence, 161 , 162 developing programs, policies, or other prevention approaches to stop perpetration and hold perpetrators accountable, 18 empowering potential victims with knowledge and skills to act on their own behalf to defend their sexual rights, 105 , 107 and facilitating the empowerment of bystanders to disrupt harmful social norms, intervene on others’ behalf, and support survivors. 130 , 132 , 134 Existing efforts have not fully mitigated the problem 163 , 164 with consistent rates of sexual violence for decades 9 , 165 and recent data documenting the high economic cost of sexual violence (over $122,000 lifetime cost per rape victim; $3.1 for all victims 166 ).

To build a comprehensive, efficacious approach, key gaps must be addressed with support for additional research. First, although substantial progress has been made to identify risk factors for sexual violence perpetration and victimization, 18 , 24 data on protective factors are generally lacking. 24 Protective factors include characteristics of the individual, their experiences, their relationships, or their environment that can reduce violence or buffer the effects of risk factors. Research identifying modifiable characteristics of the campus culture, environment, policies, or practices that are associated with lower levels of sexual violence is needed, and would improve the ability of colleges and universities to create environments that buffer risk, supporting the development of comprehensive strategies that address external spheres of the social ecology. Although we focus on college campus interventions, it is important to note that risk and protective factors are often established prior to college, and prevention efforts are needed before college entry across levels (e.g., schools, cultural norms, policy) and for the general community.

Second, few studies have examined risk factors or interventions that cut across levels social ecology, with examination of community-level factors and prevention approaches being particularly needed. For example, a CDC systematic review of sexual violence perpetration risk factors in the general population 24 identified 42 individual-level risk factors, 23 relationship-level factors, and only 2 societal/community-level factors. In a parallel manner, few studies have tested the efficacy of multi-component interventions across levels, with additional research needed. 18 , 167 The social ecological framework can be helpful in conceptualizing the problem of sexual violence and targeting prevention, while also considering that factors can interact across levels. Further, programs for both perpetration and victimization prevention that work across levels of the social ecology can be tailored to cultural considerations that may affect one’s risk of perpetrating sexual violence or being a victim, while also considering the different contexts in which sexual violence occurs (e.g., partnered relationships, among acquaintances, in and out of the party scene). Consistent with White House Task Force recommendations, 168 the CDC’s STOP SV: A Technical Package to Prevent Sexual Violence 31 supported primary prevention programs that address different levels of social ecology by fostering healthy relationship skills, social norms that protect against violence, and protective environments as recommended best practices. STOP SV supports the idea that practitioners and communities may work together to identify the approaches best suited for local contexts.

Next, the majority of research focused on campus sexual violence focuses on the context of a male perpetrator and a female survivor, likely due to its high frequency. Conceptual models of perpetration and victimization may need to be expanded to fully incorporate the range of perpetrator-victim relationships. Additional support is needed for future research to increase representation of diverse students in efforts to inform adaptations of evidence-based programs that will be effective for reducing victimization among higher risk marginalized groups (e.g., sexual and gender minorities, students with disabilities, Black, Hispanic/Latino Students, and American Indian/Alaska Native students) with potential use of hybrid implementation-effectiveness designs 169 to more rapidly impact sexual violence rates. Although research findings are mixed regarding the impact of institutional characteristics on perpetration and victimization rates, 34 understudied institutional features or norms may differentially connote risk, particularly for marginalized individuals and men and women separately, and based on type of college setting, with community and commuter colleges being particularly under-represented.

In summary, we assert that comprehensive prevention from a public health perspective involves a set of coordinated multi-component strategies that address risk and protective factors across the social ecology, that complement and reinforce each other with consistent messaging from multiple sources across multiple contexts, including addressing the diverse student population (e.g., racial/ethnic, sexual and gender minorities, those with disabilities, those at community colleges and/or commuter schools). 18 , 88 Such strategies address risk characteristics of the individual and their relationships — which is typical in campus prevention efforts 19 — but also include community-level programs and structural/societal-level policies (e.g., Campus SaVE Act 128 ) that attempt to modify students’ physical and social environment. To build multi-level strategies aimed at transforming the current campus climate, we need a strong evidence base of risk and protective factors and effective strategies at all levels. In addition to the framework provided by the CDC technical package STOP SV: A Technical Package to Prevent Sexual Violence, 31 the CDC guide Sexual Violence on Campus: Strategies for Prevention 32 and the National Collegiate Athletic Association toolkit 33 may be helpful to colleges and universities working to improve campus sexual violence prevention efforts.

Acknowledgements:

Meredith L. Philyaw-Kotov, Jessica S. Roche, & Bethany Pollock

Funding: This work was supported by a grant to the University of Michigan Injury Prevention Center by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention Award Number R49-CE-002099. Dr. Coker was supported by funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under Grant #U01CE15003; and by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human #R01HD075783. Dr. Ngo was also supported by funding from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development under Grant #R03HD087520; and by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism under Grant #K23AA022641. Dr. Senn was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research through a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Sexual Violence and Project grants. Dr. Thompson was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH under Grant #R15HD065568 and #R03HD053444-01A1. Drs. Miller and McCauley were supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism under Grant #R01AA023260.

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funders, the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, or the Department of Health and Human Services.

Declaration of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Sexual assault incidents among college undergraduates: Prevalence and factors associated with risk

Contributed equally to this work with: Claude A. Mellins, Kate Walsh, Aaron L. Sarvet, Melanie Wall, Leigh Reardon, Jennifer S. Hirsch

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Division of Gender, Sexuality and Health, Departments of Psychiatry and Sociomedical Sciences, New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, New York, New York, United States of America, Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Division of Biostatistics, Department of Psychiatry, New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Division of Biostatistics, Department of Psychiatry, New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, United States of America, Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

¶ ‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work.

Affiliation Social Intervention Group, School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Youth, Family, and Community Studies, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States of America

Roles Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Sociology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Roles Data curation, Investigation, Methodology

Roles Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

• Claude A. Mellins, 
• Kate Walsh, 
• Aaron L. Sarvet, 
• Melanie Wall, 
• Louisa Gilbert, 
• John S. Santelli, 
• Martie Thompson, 
• Patrick A. Wilson, 
• Shamus Khan, 

• Published: November 8, 2017
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471
• Reader Comments

25 Jan 2018: The PLOS ONE Staff (2018) Correction: Sexual assault incidents among college undergraduates: Prevalence and factors associated with risk. PLOS ONE 13(1): e0192129. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192129 View correction

Sexual assault on college campuses is a public health issue. However varying research methodologies (e.g., different sexual assault definitions, measures, assessment timeframes) and low response rates hamper efforts to define the scope of the problem. To illuminate the complexity of campus sexual assault, we collected survey data from a large population-based random sample of undergraduate students from Columbia University and Barnard College in New York City, using evidence based methods to maximize response rates and sample representativeness, and behaviorally specific measures of sexual assault to accurately capture victimization rates. This paper focuses on student experiences of different types of sexual assault victimization, as well as sociodemographic, social, and risk environment correlates. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and logistic regression were used to estimate prevalences and test associations. Since college entry, 22% of students reported experiencing at least one incident of sexual assault (defined as sexualized touching, attempted penetration [oral, anal, vaginal, other], or completed penetration). Women and gender nonconforming students reported the highest rates (28% and 38%, respectively), although men also reported sexual assault (12.5%). Across types of assault and gender groups, incapacitation due to alcohol and drug use and/or other factors was the perpetration method reported most frequently (> 50%); physical force (particularly for completed penetration in women) and verbal coercion were also commonly reported. Factors associated with increased risk for sexual assault included non-heterosexual identity, difficulty paying for basic necessities, fraternity/sorority membership, participation in more casual sexual encounters (“hook ups”) vs. exclusive/monogamous or no sexual relationships, binge drinking, and experiencing sexual assault before college. High rates of re-victimization during college were reported across gender groups. Our study is consistent with prevalence findings previously reported. Variation in types of assault and methods of perpetration experienced across gender groups highlight the need to develop prevention strategies tailored to specific risk groups.

Citation: Mellins CA, Walsh K, Sarvet AL, Wall M, Gilbert L, Santelli JS, et al. (2017) Sexual assault incidents among college undergraduates: Prevalence and factors associated with risk. PLoS ONE 12(11): e0186471. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471

Editor: Hafiz T. A. Khan, University of West London, UNITED KINGDOM

Received: July 28, 2017; Accepted: October 2, 2017; Published: November 8, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 Mellins et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data underlying the study cannot be made available, beyond the aggregated data that are included in the paper, because of concerns related to participant confidentiality. Sharing the individual-level survey data would violate the terms of our agreement with research participants, and the Columbia University Medical Center IRB has confirmed that the potential for deductive identification and the risk of loss of confidentiality is too great to share the data, even if de-identified.

Funding: This research was funded by Columbia University through a donation from the Levine Family. The funder (Levine Family) had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Recent estimates of sexual assault victimization among college students in the United States (US) are as high as 20–25% [ 1 – 3 ], prompting universities to enhance or develop policies and programs to prevent sexual assault. However, a 2016 review [ 4 ] highlights the variation in sexual assault prevalence estimates (1.8% to 34%) which likely can be attributed to methodological differences across studies, including varying sexual assault definitions, sampling methods, assessment timeframes, and target populations [ 4 ]. Such differences can hamper efforts to understand the scope of the problem. Moreover, while accurate estimates of prevalence are crucial for calling attention to the population-health burden of sexual assault, knowing more about risk factors is critical for determining resource allocation and developing effective programs and policies for prevention.

Reasons for the variation in prevalence estimates include different definitions of sexual assault and assessment methods. Under the rubric of sexual assault, researchers have investigated experiences ranging from sexual harassment at school or work, to unwanted touching, including fondling on the street or dance floor, to either unwanted/non-consensual attempts at oral, anal or vaginal sexual intercourse (attempted penetrative sex), or completed penetrative sex [ 3 , 5 – 7 ]. Some studies have focused on a composite variable of multiple forms of unwanted/non-consensual sexual contact [ 8 , 9 ] while others focus on a single behavior, such as completed rape [ 10 ]. Some studies focus on acts perpetrated by a single method (e.g. incapacitation due to alcohol and drug use or other factors) [ 11 ], while others include a range of methods (e.g., physical force, verbal coercion, and incapacitation) [ 12 – 15 ]. In general, studies that ask about a wide range of acts and use behaviorally specific questions about types of sexual assault and methods of perpetration have yielded more accurate estimates [ 16 ]. Behavioral specificity avoids the pitfall of participants using their own sexual assault definitions and does not require the respondent to identify as a victim or survivor, which may lead to underreporting [ 10 , 17 – 19 ].

Although an increasing number of studies have used behaviorally specific methods and examined prevalence and predictors of sexual assault [ 20 , 21 ], they typically have used convenience samples. Only a few published studies have used population-based surveys and achieved response rates sufficient to mitigate some of the concerns of sample response bias [ 4 ]. US federal agencies have urged universities to implement standardized “campus climate surveys” to assess the prevalence and reporting of sexual violence [ 22 ]. Although these surveys have emphasized behavioral specificity, many have yielded low response rates (e.g., 25%) [ 23 ], particularly among men [ 24 ], creating potential for response bias in the obtained data. Population-based probability samples with behavioral specificity, good response rates, sufficiently large samples to examine risk for specific subgroups (e.g., sexual minority students), and detailed information on personal, social, or contextual risk factors (e.g., alcohol use) [ 22 , 23 ] are needed to more accurately define prevalence and inform evidence-based sexual assault prevention programs.

Existing evidence suggests that most sexual assault incidents are perpetrated against women [ 25 ]; however, few studies have examined college men as survivors of assault [ 26 – 28 ]. Furthermore, our understanding of how sexual orientation and gender identity relate to risk for sexual assault is limited, despite indications that lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB), and gender non-conforming (GNC) students are at high risk [ 29 – 31 ]. It is unclear if these groups are at higher risk for all types of sexual assault or if prevention programming should be tailored to address particular types of assault within these groups. Also, although women appear to be at highest risk for assault during freshman year [ 32 , 33 ], the dearth of studies with men or GNC students have limited conclusions about whether freshman year is also a risky period for them.

Additional factors associated with experiencing sexual assault in college students include being a racial/ethnic minority student (although there are mixed findings on race/ethnicity) [ 34 , 35 ], low financial status, and prior history of sexual assault [ 3 , 33 , 36 ]. Other risk factors include variables related to student social life, including being a freshman [ 24 ], participating in fraternities and sororities [ 19 , 37 , 38 ], binge drinking [ 1 , 39 ] and participating in “hook-up” culture [ 40 – 42 ]. Whether sexual assault is happening in the context of more casual, typically non-committal sexual relationships (“hook-ups”) [ 40 ] vs. steady intimate or monogamous relationships has important implications for prevention efforts.

To fill some of these knowledge gaps, we examined survey data collected from a large population-based random sample of undergraduate women, men, and GNC students at Columbia University (CU) and Barnard College (BC). The aims of this paper are to:

• Estimate the prevalence of types of sexual assault incidents involving a) sexualized touching, b) attempted penetrative (oral, anal or vaginal) sex, and c) completed penetrative sex since starting at CU/BC;
• Describe the methods of perpetration (e.g., incapacitation, physical force, verbal coercion) used; and
• Examine associations between key sociodemographic, social and romantic/sexual relationship factors and different types of sexual assault victimization, and how these associations differ by gender.

Materials and methods

This study used data from a population-representative survey that formed one component of the Sexual Health Initiative to Foster Transformation (SHIFT) study. SHIFT used mixed methods to examine risk and protective factors affecting sexual health and sexual violence among college undergraduates from two inter-related institutions, CU’s undergraduate schools (co-educational) and BC (women only), both located in New York City. SHIFT featured ethnographic research, the survey, and a daily diary study. Additionally, SHIFT focused on internal policy-translation work to inform institutionally-appropriate, multi-level approaches to prevention.

Participants

Survey participants were selected via stratified random sampling from the March 2016 population of 9,616 CU/BC undergraduate students ages 18–29 years. We utilized evidence-based methods to enhance response rates and sample representativeness [ 22 , 43 ]. Using administrative records of enrolled students, 2,500 students (2,000 from CU and 500 from BC) were invited via email to participate in a web-based survey. Of these 2,500 students, 1,671 (67%) consented to participate (see Procedures). Among those who consented to participate, 80.5% were from CU and 19.5% were from BC (see Table 1 below for demographic data on the CU/BC student population, the random sample of students contacted, the survey responders, and the current analytic sample).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471.t001

SHIFT employed multiple procedures to assure protection of students involved in our study; these procedures also improve scientific rigor. The study was approved by the Columbia University Medical Center Institutional Review Board and we obtained a federal Certificate of Confidentiality to legally protect our data from subpoena. SHIFT also obtained a University waiver from reporting on individual sexual assaults, as reporting would obviate student privacy and willingness to participate. Students were offered information about referrals to health and mental health resources during the consent process and at the end of the survey, and such information was available from SHIFT via other communication channels. Finally, in reporting data we suppressed data from tables where there were less than 3 subjects in any cell to avoid the possibility of deductive identification of an individual student [ 44 ].

SHIFT used principles of Community Based Participatory Research regarding ongoing dialogue with University stakeholders on study development and implementation to maximize the quality of data and impact of research findings [ 45 ]. This included weekly meetings between SHIFT investigators and an Undergraduate Advisory Board, consisting of 13–18 students, reflecting the undergraduate student body’s diversity in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, year in school, and activities (e.g., fraternity/sorority membership). It also included regular meetings with an Institutional Advisory Board comprised of senior administrators, including CU’s Office of General Counsel, facilities, sexual violence response, student conduct, officials involved in gender-based misconduct concerns, athletics, a chaplain, mental health and counseling, residential life, student health, and student life.

Following both the Undergraduate Advisory Board’s recommendations and Dillman’s Tailored Design Method for maximizing survey response rates [ 43 ], multiple methods were used to advertise and recruit students. These included: a) email messages, both to generate interest and remind students who had been selected to participate, crafted to resonate with diverse student motives for participation (e.g., interest in sexual assault, compensation, community spirit, and achieving higher response rates than surveys at peer institutions), b) posting flyers, c) holding “study breaks,” in which students were given snacks and drinks, and d) tabling in public areas on campus.

Participants used a unique link to access the survey either at our on-campus research office where computers and snacks were provided (16% of participants) or at a location of their choosing (84% of participants) from March-May, 2016. Before beginning the survey, participants were asked to provide informed consent on an electronic form describing the study, confidentiality, compensation for time and effort, data handling procedures, and the right to refuse to answer any question. Students who completed the survey received $40 in compensation, given in cash to those who completed the survey in our on-campus research office or as an electronic gift card if completed elsewhere. Students were also entered into a lottery to win additional $200 electronic gift cards. This compensation was established based on feedback from student and institutional advisors and reviewed by our Institutional Review Board. It was judged to be sufficient to promote participation, and help ensure that we captured a representative sample, including students who might otherwise have to choose between paid opportunities and participating in our survey, but not great enough to feel coercive for low resource students. This amount of compensation is in line with other similar studies [ 46 ]. On average, the survey took 35–40 minutes to complete.

The SHIFT survey included behaviorally-specific measures of different types of sexual assault, perpetrated by different methods, as well as measures of key sociodemographic, social and sexual relationship factors, and risk environment characteristics. The majority of instruments had been validated previously with college- age students. The survey was administered in English using Qualtrics ( www.qualtrics.com ), providing a secure platform for online data collection.

Sexual assault.

Sexual assault was assessed with a slightly modified version of the revised Sexual Experiences Survey [ 16 ], the most widely used measure of sexual assault victimization with very good psychometric properties including internal consistency and validity previously published [ 17 , 47 ]. The Sexual Experiences Survey employs behaviorally specific questions to improve accuracy [ 18 ]. The scale includes questions on type of assault, including sexualized touching without penetration (touching, kissing, fondling, grabbing in a sexual way), attempted but not completed penetrative assault (oral, vaginal, anal or other type of penetration; herein referred to as attempted penetrative assault) and completed penetrative assault (herein referred to as penetrative assault). We used most of the Sexual Experiences Survey as is. However, with strong urging from our Undergraduate Advisory Board, we made a modification, combining the questions about different types of penetration (oral, vaginal, etc.) rather than asking about each kind separately. In the Sexual Experiences Survey, for each type of assault there are six methods of perpetration. Two of the types reflect verbal coercion: 1) “Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about me, making promises I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring me after I said I didn’t want to” (herein referred to as “lying/threats”), and 2) “Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn’t want to” (herein referred to as “criticism”). The remaining types included use of physical force, threats of physical harm, or incapacitation (“Taking advantage when I couldn’t say no because I was either too drunk, passed out, asleep or otherwise incapacitated”), and other. For each incident of sexual assault, participants could endorse multiple methods of perpetration. Participants were also asked to report whether these experiences occurred: a) during the current academic year (this was a second modification to the Sexual Experiences Survey) and/or b) since enrollment but prior to the current academic year. For this paper, data for the two time periods were combined, reflecting the entire period since starting CU/BC. See Fig 1 for a replica of the questionnaire.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471.g001

Demographics.

Demographics included gender identity (male, female, trans-male/trans-female, gender queer/gender-non-conforming, other) [ 48 ], year in school (e.g., freshman, sophomore, junior, senior), age, US born (yes/no), lived in US less than five years (yes/no; proxy for recent international student status), transfer student (yes/no), low socioeconomic status (receipt of Pell grant-yes/no [need-based grants for low-income students, with eligibility dependent on family income]); how often participant has trouble paying for basic necessities (never, rarely, sometimes, often, all of the time), and race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic-Asian, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic/Latin-x, other [other included: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, More than one Race/Ethnicity, Other]). Gender was categorized as follows: female, male and GNC (students who responded to gender identity question as anything other than male or female).

Fraternity/Sorority.

Fraternity/sorority membership (ever participated) was assessed with one question from a school activities checklist (yes/no). We report on Greek life participation here to engage with the substantial attention this has received as a risk factor.

Problematic drinking.

Problematic drinking during the last year was assessed with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) [ 49 ], a widely used, well-validated standardized 10-item screening tool developed by the World Health Organization. Psychometrics have been established in numerous studies [ 50 – 52 ]. The AUDIT assesses alcohol consumption, drinking behaviors, and alcohol-related problems. Participants rate each question on a 5-point scale from 0 (never) to 4 (daily or almost daily) for possible scores ranging from 0 to 40. The range of AUDIT scores represents varying levels of risk: 0–7 (low), 8–15 (risky or hazardous), 16–19 (high-risk or harmful), and 20 or greater (high-risk). We also examined one AUDIT item on binge drinking, defined as having 6+ drinks on one occasion at least monthly [ 49 ].

Sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation was assessed with one question with the following response options (students could select all that applied): asexual, pansexual, bisexual, queer, heterosexual and homosexual, as well as other [ 53 , 54 ]. Students were categorized into four mutually exclusive groups for analyses: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, and other which included asexual, pansexual, queer, or another identity not listed. Non-heterosexual students who indicated more than one orientation were assigned hierarchically to bisexual, homosexual, then other.

Romantic/sexual relationships.

Romantic/sexual relationships since enrollment at CU/BC were assessed with one question. Response choices included: none, steady or serious relationship, exclusive or monogamous relationship, hook-up-one time, and ongoing hook-up or friends with benefits. Students defined “hookup” for themselves. Students could check all that applied. This variable was trichotomized: at least one hook-up, only steady or exclusive/monogamous relationships, and no romantic/sexual relationships.

Pre-college sexual assault.

Students also were asked one yes/no question on whether they had experienced any unwanted sexual contact prior to enrolling at CU/BC.

Data analysis

To assess the representativeness of the sample, the distribution of demographic variables based on administrative records from CU and BC for the total University undergraduate population were compared to the random sample of students contacted, the survey responders, and the current analytic sample, which consists of students that responded to the questions about sexual assault. Demographics for survey responders are based on self-report from the survey. Cramer’s V effect size was used to assess the magnitude of the differences in demographic distributions between the CU/BC population and respondent sample where smaller values (i.e. Cramer’s V <0.10) indicate strong similarity [ 55 ].

Analyses were performed on each type of sexual assault as well as a combined “Any type of sexual assault” variable: yes/no experienced sexualized touching, attempted penetrative assault, and/or penetrative assault since CU/BC. Prevalence of each type of sexual assault was calculated by gender and year in school, with chi-square tests of difference used to compare prevalence between genders across each year in school versus freshman year. The total number of incidents of assault and the mean, median and standard deviation for number of incidents of assault per person reporting at least one assault were summarized. Among individuals who experienced any type of sexual assault, the proportions that experienced a particular method of perpetration (e.g. incapacitation, physical force) were calculated by type of sexual assault. Chi-square tests compared proportions between males and females for each perpetration method. The associations of each key correlate with the odds of experiencing any sexual assault were calculated and tested using logistic regression stratified by male/female gender. In addition, a multinomial regression with hierarchical categories (no assault, sexualized touching only, attempted penetrative assault [not completed], and penetrative assault [completed]) as the outcome was performed to examine if associations differed by type of sexual assault. To adjust for the fact that the sample comes from a finite population (i.e. CU/BC N = 5,765 women; N = 3,851 men), a standard finite population correction was implemented for standard error estimation using SAS Proc Surveylogistic. Given the low sample size of GNC students, they were excluded from some analyses. All analyses were conducted using SAS (v. 9.4).

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 presents demographic data on the full University, the randomly selected sample, the respondents and the analytic sample for this paper. Among students who consented to the survey (n = 1,671), 46 stopped the survey before the sexual assault questions and 33 refused to answer them resulting in an analytic sample of n = 1,592 (95% completion among responders). Demographic characteristics (i.e. gender [male, female], age, race/ethnicity, year in school, international status, and economic need [Pell grant status]) of the respondent sample were very similar (Cramer’s V effect size differences all <0.10 [ 55 ]) to the full CU/BC population ( Table 1 ) indicating that the responder and final analytic samples were representative of the student body population.

The analytic sample included 58% women, 40% men, and 2% GNC students (4 students refused to identify their gender) and was distributed evenly by year in school with most (92%) between18-23 years of age. Self-reported race/ethnicity was 43% white non-Hispanic, 23% Asian, 15% Hispanic/Latino, and 8% black non-Hispanic; 13% were transfer students, and the majority of the sample was born in the US (76%). Twenty-three percent of participants received Pell grants and 51% of students acknowledged at least sometimes having difficulty paying for basic necessities.

The majority of women (79%) and men (85%) identified as heterosexual. In terms of romantic/sexual relationships since starting CU/BC, 30.0% of women and 21.6% of men reported no relationships, 21.0% of women and 22.6% of men reported only steady/exclusive relationships with no hookups, and 49.0% of women and 55.7% of men reported at least one hook-up. Finally, 25.5% of women, 9.4% of men, and 47.0% of GNC students reported pre-college sexual assault.

Aim 1: Prevalence of sexual assault victimization at CU/BC

Overall rates by gender and school year..

Since starting CU/BC, 22.0% (350/1,592) of students reported experiencing at least one incident of any sexual assault across the three types (sexualized touching, attempted penetrative assault, and penetrative assault). Table 2 presents data on types of assault by gender and year in school. Women were over twice as likely as men to report any sexual assault (28.1% vs 12.5%). There was evidence of cumulative risk for experiencing sexual assault among women over four years of college, so that by junior and senior year, respectively, 29.7% and 36.4% of women reported experiencing any sexual assault, compared to 21.0% of freshman women who had only one year of possible exposure (p < .05). However, one-fifth (21.0%) of women who took the survey as freshman had experienced unwanted sexual contact, compared to 36.4% over 3+ years (seniors), suggesting that as others have found, the risk of assault is highest in freshman year.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471.t002

Among men, one in eight indicated that they had been sexually assaulted since starting CU. Similar to women, the risk for sexual assault among men accumulated over the four years of college, with 15.6% of seniors vs 9.9% of freshman reporting a sexual assault since entering CU, although this difference was not statistically significant.

Although the numbers were small, GNC students reported the highest prevalence of sexual assault since starting CU/BC (38.5%; 10/26). Numbers were too small (n<3) to present stratified by year in school (see Table 2 ).

Types of sexual assault by gender ( Table 2 ).

The most prevalent form of sexual assault was sexualized touching; rates for women (23.6%) and GNC students (38.5%) were significantly higher than rates for men (11.0%; p < .05). Prevalence of attempted penetrative assault and penetrative assault were about half that of sexualized touching. Compared to men, women were three times as likely to report attempted penetrative assault (11.1% vs 3.8%) and over twice as likely to experience penetrative assault (13.6% vs 5.2%). Among GNC students, the majority reporting sexualized touching, with rates of the other two types too small to report.

Experiencing multiple sexual assaults ( Fig 2 ; S1 Table ).

Students could report multiple types of sexual assault incidents (i.e. sexualized touching, attempted penetrative, and penetrative assault) as well as multiple incidents experienced of each type. Overall, students reported a total of 1,007 incidents of sexual assault experienced since starting CU/BC. For the 350 students who indicated any sexual assault, the median number of incidents experienced was 3.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471.g002

Among the 350 students reporting any sexual assault, Fig 2 presents different combinations of sexual assault experienced by students since CU/BC. Most prevalent, 38.0% reported experiencing only sexualized touching; 19.0% reported both sexualized touching and penetrative assault incidents; 17.0% experienced all three types of assault; and 12.0% sexualized touching and attempted penetrative assault.

Aim 2: Methods of perpetration (lying/threats, criticism, incapacitation, physical force, threats of harm, and other) by gender ( Table 3 )

Across types of assault, incapacitation was the method of perpetration reported most frequently (> 50%) in both men and women. For both women and men, approximately two-thirds of all penetrative assaults and about half of sexualized touching and attempted penetrative assaults involved incapacitation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471.t003

Physical force was reported significantly more frequently by women than men (34.6% vs 12.7%) for any sexual assault. More specifically, compared to men, women were three times more likely to experience sexualized touching via physical force (32.1% vs. 10.0%), and six times more likely to experience penetrative assaults via physical force (33.3% vs 6.1%).

Lastly, a sizeable number of respondents reported verbal coercion (ranging from 21.0% to over 40.0% depending on type of assault). Criticism was cited by women at rates similar to physical force for both sexualized touching and penetrative assaults. Among men, both verbal coercion methods were cited most frequently after incapacitation for all three types of assault.

For GNC students, we examined rates of each perpetration method for only the composite variable any sexual assault (due to small numbers in any specific type of assault). Among those who experienced an assault, incapacitation was the most frequently mentioned method (50.0%), followed by criticism (40.0%).

Aim 3: Identify factors associated with sexual assault experiences

We examined the association between sexual assault (both any sexual assault [ Table 4 ] and each type of sexual assault [ Table 5 ]) and key demographic, sexual history and social activity factors. Results are stratified by gender (women/men).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471.t004

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471.t005

Race/Ethnicity.

For both women and men, the prevalence of any sexual assault was similar for all race/ethnicity groups compared to non-Hispanic White students with one exception. Asian students (women and men) were less likely to experience any sexual assault than non-Hispanic White students. For women only, differences emerged by type of assault. Asian women compared to non-Hispanic White women were less likely to experience penetrative assault (OR = 0.35, CI: 0.19–0.62), but not attempted penetrative assault (OR = 0.56, CI: 0.25–1.26), nor sexualized touching only (OR = 1.00, CI: 0.59–1.69). Black women were found to have increased odds of touching only incidents compared to non-Hispanic White women (OR = 1.99, CI: 1.05–3.74). There were no other significant racial or ethnic differences.

Economic precarity.

Women who often or always had difficulty paying for basic necessities had increased odds of any sexual assault; for men the trend was similar but it did not reach statistical significance. Considering penetrative assault specifically, both men and women who often or always had difficulty paying for basic necessities had increased risk (women OR = 2.24, CI: 1.23–4.09; men OR = 3.07, CI: 1.04–9.07) compared to those who never had difficulty.

Transfer student.

Women transfer students were less likely to experience any sexual assault than non-transfer students. Closer inspection of type of assault revealed that this protective effect was seen for sexualized touching only (OR = 0.34, CI: 0.15–0.80), but not for penetrative (OR = 0.60, CI: 0.34–1.08), nor attempted penetrative (OR = 1.03, CI: 0.48–2.21) assault. There were no significant differences between men who were transfer students and those who were not.

For women, those who identified as bisexual and those who identified as some other sexual identity besides heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual (includes people endorsing exclusively one or a combination of: Asexual, Pansexual, Queer, or a sexual orientation not listed), were more likely to experience any sexual assault than heterosexual students. For penetrative assault specifically, this increased risk was only present for individuals with some other sexual identity (OR = 2.11, CI: 1.20–3.73). For men, those who identified as homosexual were more likely to experience any sexual assault than heterosexual male students. For penetrative assault specifically, those who identified as homosexual, bisexual, or some other sexual identity all had substantially increased risk compared to those with a heterosexual identity (OR = 4.74, CI: 2.10–10.71; OR = 3.39, CI: 1.03–11.16; OR = 4.74, CI:1.10–20.48, respectively).

Information about the gender of the perpetrator for different gender and sexual orientation groups was available for a subset of incidents (336/997). Among these events, 98.4% (3/184) of the heterosexual women indicated the perpetrator was a man, while 97.1% (33/34) of the bisexual women, 75% (3/4) of the homosexual women, and 88.9% (24/27) of the other sexual identity women indicated it was a man. For men who were assaulted, 84.9% (45/53) of the heterosexual men reported the perpetrator was a woman, while 0 of the homosexual men said the perpetrator was a woman. Numbers for bisexual men and other sexual identity men were too small to report separately, but combined showed that 5/8 (63.0%) of bisexual and other sexual identity men said the perpetrator was a woman. Of the GNC students reporting on a most-significant event, 77.8% (7/9) reported that they were assaulted by a male perpetrator (the numbers are too small to further examine by sexual orientation).

Lived in US less than 5 years.

There was no association found between living in the US for less than 5 years and any sexual assault, nor any specific type of sexual assault.

Relationship status.

Among both women and men, students who had at least one hook-up were more likely to have experienced any sexual assault than students who were in only steady/exclusive relationships since starting college. Among women who had engaged in at least one hook-up, this increased risk held for each type of sexual assault (penetrative: OR = 5.03, CI = 2.91–8.68, attempted penetrative: OR = 4.43, CI = 1.83–10.8, sexualized touching only: OR = 3.26, CI = 1.74–6.09), while among men the increased risk was found for sexualized touching only (OR = 13.33, CI = 2.09–85.08), but could not be estimated (due to small numbers) for completed penetrative assault. Women who did not have any romantic or sexual relationship since CU/BC were found to be less likely to experience penetrative assault than women who had a steady/exclusive relationships only (OR = 0.05, CI: 0.01–0.31).

Fraternity/Sorority membership.

Although a relative minority of students participated in fraternities (24.1%) or sororities (18.2%), for both men and women, those who participated were more likely to experience any sexual assault than those who did not. Examination of type of assault revealed that the effect is driven primarily by sexualized touching only which is significant in both women (OR = 1.63, CI: 1.00–2.67) and men (OR = 2.40, CI: 1.25–4.63) and not significantly increased for penetrative nor attempted penetrative assault.

Risky or hazardous drinking.

For both men and women, individuals who met criteria on the AUDIT for risky or hazardous drinking were more likely to experience any sexual assault than those who did not. When examining each type of assault separately, for men this increased risk was only significant for penetrative assault (OR = 4.07, CI: 2.01–8.21). For women, the increased risk of assault held for each type of assault—penetrative (OR = 6.04, CI: 4.10–8.90), attempted (OR = 3.38, CI: 1.84–6.19) and touching (OR = 2.33, CI: 1.42–3.81). We also looked at one AUDIT item specifically on binge drinking (6 or more drinks on a single occasion). Individuals who reported binge drinking at least monthly were more likely to experience any sexual assault than those who did not. When examining each type of assault separately, for men this increased risk was only significant for penetrative assault (OR = 2.15, CI: 1.12–4.15). For women, this increased risk was significant for penetrative assault (OR = 3.12, CI: 2.09–4.65), attempted assault (OR = 2.28, CI: 1.20–4.33), and touching (OR = 2.42, CI:1.50–3.91).

Pre-college assault ( Table 5 ).

Among both women and men, those who experienced pre-college assault were more likely to experience any sexual assault while at CU/BC. The increased risk held for penetrative assault in both women (OR = 3.01, CI: 2.07–4.37) and men (OR = 2.44, CI: 1.03–5.76). In women, the increased risk also held for attempted penetrative, but not touching only, whereas in men, the increased risk held for touching only, but not attempted penetrative sex.

The SHIFT survey, with a population-representative sample, good response rate and behaviorally-specific questions, found that 22.0% of students reported a sexual assault since starting college, which confirms previous studies of 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 prevalence estimates with national samples and a range of types of schools [ 23 , 24 ]. However, a key finding is that focusing only on the “1 in 4/ 1 in 5” rate of any sexual assault obscures much of the nuance concerning types of sexual assault as well as the differential group risk, as prevalence rates were unevenly distributed across gender and several other social and demographic factors.

Similar to other studies [ 4 , 24 ], women had much higher rates of experiencing any type of sexual assault compared to men (28.0% vs 12.0%). Moreover, our data suggest a cumulative risk for sexual assault experiences over four years of college with over one in three women experiencing an assault by senior year. However, our data also suggest that freshman year, particularly for women, is when the greatest percentage experience an assault. This supports other work on freshman year as a particularly critical time for prevention efforts, otherwise known as the “red zone” effect for women [ 32 ].

Importantly, our study confirms that GNC students are at heightened risk for sexual assault [ 23 ]. They had the highest proportion of sexual assaults, with 38.0% reporting at least one incident, the majority of which involved unwanted/non-consensual sexualized touching. These data should be interpreted very cautiously given the small number of GNC students. However, increasingly studies suggest that transgender and other GNC students have sexual health needs that may not be targeted by traditional programming [ 57 ]; thus, a better understanding of pathways to vulnerability among these students is of high importance.

Similarly, students who identified as a sexual orientation other than heterosexual were at increased risk for experiencing any sexual assault, with bisexual women or women who identified as “other” and men who identified as any non-heterosexual category at increased risk. Similar to GNC students, understanding the specific social and sexual health needs of LGB students, particularly as it relates to reducing sexual assault risk is critical to prevention efforts [ 58 ]. Factors such as stigma and discrimination, lack of communication, substance use, as well as a potential lack of tailored prevention programs may play a role. To our knowledge, there are no evidence-based college sexual assault prevention programs targeting LGB and GNC students. Our data suggest that the LGB and GNC experiences are not uniform; more research should be done within each of these groups to understand the mechanisms behind their potentially unique risk factors.

Our data also suggest that the 20–25% rate of any sexual assault obscures variation in assault experiences. Sexualized touching accounted for the highest percentage of acts across gender groups, with over one-third of participants reporting only sexualized touching incidents. Rates of attempted and completed penetrative sexual assault were about half the rate of sexualized touching. This finding does not minimize the importance of addressing unacceptably high rates of attempted penetrative and penetrative assault (14%-15%), but it does suggest the importance of specificity in prevention efforts. For GNC students, for example, the risk of assault was primarily for sexualized touching with very few reporting attempted penetrative assault or penetrative assault during their time at CU/BC. These elevated rates of unwanted sexual touching may be a combination of GNC students’ focus on their gendered sexual boundaries–and thus potentially greater awareness of when advances are unwanted–at a developmental moment when they are building non-traditional gender identities, as well as these students’ social vulnerability. Further investigation is warranted.

Moreover, there was variation in methods of perpetration reported by survivors of sexual assault. Incapacitation was the most common method reported across all gender groups for each type of assault, and female and male students who reported risky or hazardous drinking were at increased risk for experiencing any sexual assault, particularly penetrative assault. Across campuses in the US, hazardous drinking is a national problem with substantive negative health outcomes, risk for sexual assault being one of them [ 2 , 39 , 59 ]. Our data underline the potential of programs and policies to reduce substance use and limit its harms as one element of comprehensive sexual assault prevention; we found few evidence-based interventions that address both binge drinking and sexual assault prevention. Of course, any work addressing substance use as a driver of vulnerability must do so in a way that does not replicate victim-blaming.

However, similar to other studies with broad foci, incapacitation was not the only method of perpetration reported. For women, physical force, particularly for penetrative sex, was the second most frequently endorsed method. Verbal coercion, including criticism, lying and threats to end the relationship or spread rumors, was also employed at rates similar to physical force for women, and was the second most frequently endorsed category for men and GNC students. Prevention programs, such as the bystander interventions which are the focus of efforts on many campuses [ 60 ], often focus on incapacitation or physical force. These interventions tend to highlight situations where survivors (typically women) are vulnerable because they are under the influence of substances. In SHIFT, verbal coercion is also shown to be a powerful driver of assault; however, it typically does not receive as much attention as rape, which is legally defined as penetration due to physical force or incapacitation. If a survivor is verbally coerced into providing affirmative consent, the incident could be considered within consent guidelines of “yes means yes” but it may have been unwanted by the survivor [ 61 , 62 ]. Assertiveness interventions and those that focus on verbal consent practices may be useful for addressing this form of assault.

We also found high rates of re-victimization. As others have found, pre-college sexual assault was a key predictor for experiencing assault at CU/BC [ 33 , 36 ]. However, we also found high rates of repeat victimization since starting at CU/BC with a median of 3 incidents per person reporting any sexual assault since starting CU/BC, and the highest risk of repeat victimization in women and GNC students. These data underline the importance of prevention efforts that include care for survivors to reduce the enhanced vulnerability that has been shown in other populations of assault survivors [ 36 ]. Future studies should also seek to disaggregate the relationship between type of victimization (sexualized touching, attempted penetrative assault, penetrative assault) and repeat victimization.

This study also identified a number of variables associated with sexual assault, some similar to previous studies and others different. As noted, gender was a key correlate. While prevention efforts should respond to the population-level burden by focusing on the needs of women and GNC students, it is important to note that men were also at risk of sexual assault. In our study, nearly 1 in 8 men reported a sexual assault experience, a rate also found in the Online College Social Life survey [ 56 ], but higher than other studies [ 63 , 64 ]. Few programs target men, and issues around masculinity and gender roles may make it difficult for men to consider or report what has happened to them as sexual assault. Importantly, this study found that men who were members of fraternities were at higher risk for experiencing assault (specifically unwanted/nonconsensual sexualized touching) than those who were not members. This is consistent with previous findings, including the Online College Social Life survey [ 56 ], but is of particular note because research has identified men in fraternities as more likely to be perpetrators [ 64 ], but few, if any, studies have looked at fraternity members’ vulnerability to sexual assault. Our data suggest a need for further examination of the cultural and organizational dimensions of Greek life that produce this heightened risk of being assaulted for both men and women. However, it is important to note that we did not examine a range of other social and extracurricular groups which may have produced risk as well and thus a more full examination of student undergraduate life is needed.

One other key factor associated with assault was participation in “hook ups”. Both male and female students who reported hooking up were more likely to report experiencing sexual assault, compared to students who only had exclusive or monogamous relationships and those who had no sexual relationships. The role of hooking up on college campuses has received much attention in the popular press and in a number of books [ 65 , 66 ], but little has been written about its connection to sexual assault, although several recent studies are in line with ours about its role as a risk factor for experiencing sexual assault on college campuses [ 40 , 41 ]. Multiple mechanisms may be at work: students who participate in hookups may be having sex with more people, and thus face greater risk of assault due to greater exposure to sex with a potential perpetrator, but students who participate in hookups may also face increased vulnerability because many hookups involve “drunk” sex, or because hookups by definition involve sexual interactions between people who are not in a long-term intimate relationship, and thus whose bodies and social cues maybe unfamiliar to each other. Alternatively some aspects of hook-ups may be more or less risky than others and therefore continued study of different dimensions of these more casual relationships that can refer to a wide-range of behaviors is necessary.

Several demographic characteristics were not for the most part associated with sexual assault. We did not find racial or ethnic differences in sexual assault risk with primarily one exception, Asian male and female students were at less risk overall compared to white students. We also did not find transfer students to be at greater risk; female transfer students were actually at lower risk, potentially due to less exposure time, particularly during freshman year. International student status as indicated by having been in the US<5 years was also not associated with increased risk. However, this study highlights the role of economic factors that have received limited attention in the literature. Little is known about how economic insecurity may drive vulnerability, but issues of power, privilege, and control of alcohol and space all require further examination.

There are several limitations to this study. Participants came from only two private schools that are interconnected in one city, and thus findings may not generalize to the rest of the US. There is a continued need for more national studies with different types of colleges and universities in urban and rural environments with more varied economic backgrounds in order to fully understand institutional and contextual differences. Although we had a response rate that was higher than many prior studies and our rates of sexual assault are consistent with prior studies [ 4 ], we cannot assess the extent to which selection bias may have occurred and therefore, our rates could be an underrepresentation or overrepresentation depending on who chose to participate. Although this concern is somewhat mitigated by findings that basic demographic data between respondents and the total population of students at two colleges suggest no significant differences, there may be some bias in factors we did not consider. Our present analysis has focused only on bivariate associations between risk factors and assault. While this analysis provides a valuable description of which groups are at elevated risk or not, future work will consider how combinations of risk factors at different levels may interact to increase risk. Critically, the analysis presented here reflects a focus on those who experience being assaulted, but in other work we look at the characteristics of perpetrators, both from those who reported perpetrating and from a subset of incidents that survey respondents described in depth, which provided more information about the perpetrator. A greater understanding of the characteristics and contexts of perpetration is without question vital for effective prevention. Finally, our data are cross sectional. Longitudinal studies with a comprehensive range of predictors are critical for identifying pathways of causality and targets for interventions.

Despite these limitations, this study confirms the unacceptably high rates of sexual assault and suggests diversity in experiences and methods of perpetration. A key conclusion is that a”one size fits all” approach that characterizes the extant literature on evidence-based prevention programs [ 67 ] may need to be altered to more effectively prevent sexual assault in college. Clearly different groups had differential risk for assault and may require much more targeted prevention efforts. Bystander interventions have shown promise in addressing risk in social situations, including fraternity parties and other settings with high alcohol use [ 68 , 69 ]. However, bystander interventions may not be sufficient for incidents occurring in non-party contexts where verbal coercion methods or physical force may be used without others around.

Creating effective and sustainable changes to campus culture requires engaging with a broad range of institutional stakeholders. SHIFT investigators are in the process of sharing selected findings with both student and institutional advisory boards, and an intensive collaborative process allows us to explore the implications of our results for a broad range of policies and programs, including both elements commonly considered as sexual assault prevention (consent education, bystander trainings), more general topics related to sexual orientation and verbal discussions of sex, and aspects of the institutional context across diverse domains including alcohol policy, mental health services, residential life policies, orientation planning, and the allocation of space across campus.

Overall, our findings argue for the potential of a systems-based [ 70 ] public health approach–one that recognizes the multiple interrelated factors that produce adverse outcomes, and perhaps particularly emphasizes gender and economic disparities and resulting power dynamics, widespread use of alcohol, attitudes about sexuality, and conversations about sex–to make inroads on an issue that stubbornly persists.

Supporting information

S1 table. number of incidents of sexual assault since enrolling at cu/bc, among individuals with at least one incident..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471.s001

Acknowledgments

The authors thank our research participants; the Undergraduate Advisory Board; Columbia University’s Office of the President and Office of University Life, and the entire SHIFT team who contributed to the development and implementation of this ambitious effort.

• 1. Fisher BS, Cullen FT, Turner MG. The Sexual Victimization of College Women. Research Report. 2000; Available: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED449712
• 2. Krebs CP, Lindquist CH, Warner TD. The Campus Sexual Assault Study (CSA) Final Report: Performance Period: January 2005 Through December 2007. 2007.
• 3. Kilpatrick D, Resnick H, Ruggiero KJ, Conoscenti LM, McCauley J. Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape: A National Study [Internet]. 2007 Jul. Report No.: 219181. Available: http://www.antoniocasella.eu/archila/Kilpatrick_drug_forcible_rape_2007.pdf
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 5. Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Walters ML, Merrick MT, et al. The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. 2011 Nov.
• 6. Catalano S, Harmon M, Beck A, Cantor D. BJS Activities on Measuring Rape and Sexual Assault [Internet]. Poster presented at; 2005. Available: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bjs_amrsa_poster.pdf
• 7. Calhoun K, Mouilso E, Edwards K. Sexual assault among college students. Sex in College. Richard D. McAnulty. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing Group; 2012. pp. 263–288.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 9. Baum K, Klaus P. National Crime Victimization Survey: Violent Victimization of College Students, 1995–2002 [Internet]. 2005 pp. 1–7. Report No.: NCJ 206836. Available: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs02.pdf
• 23. Cantor D, Fisher B, Chibnall S, Bruce C, Townsend R, Thomas G, et al. Report on the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct. Rockville, MD: Westat; 2015 Sep.
• 24. Krebs C, Lindquist C, Berzofsky M, Shook-Sa B, Peterson K. Campus Climate Survey Validation Study Final Technical Report [Internet]. Bureau of Justice Statistics Research and Development Series; 2016. Report No.: NCJ 249545. Available: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccsvsftr.pdf
• 25. Breiding M, Smith S. Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Surveill Summ Wash DC 2002. 2014;63: 1–18.
• 29. Cantor D, Fisher B, Chibnall S, Townsend R, Lee H, Bruce C, et al. Report on the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct. Rockville, MD: Westat; 2015 Sep.
• 43. Dillman DA. Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 4th ed. Wiley; 2014.
• 44. Statistical Policy Working Paper 22 (Second version, 2005): Report on Statistical Disclosure Limitation Methodology. Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, Statistical and Science Policy; Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Office of Management and Budget; 2005 Dec.
• 48. The GenIUSS Group. Best Practices for Asking Questions to Identify Transgender and Other Gender Minority Respondents on Population-Based Surveys. [Internet]. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute.; 2014. Available: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/geniuss-report-sep-2014.pdf
• 53. Redford J, Van Wagenen A. Measuring Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in a Self-Administered Survey: Results from Cognitive Research with Older Adults [Internet]. San Francisco, CA: American Institutes for Research; 2012. Available: http://paa2012.princeton.edu/papers/122975
• 54. Sell R. Measures. In: LGBTData.com [Internet]. Available: http://www.lgbtdata.com/measures.html
• 55. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
• 57. Rankin S, Weber G, Blumenfeld W, Frazer M. 2010 State of Higher Education For Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender People [Internet]. Charlotte, NC; 2010. Report No.: 978-0-9830176-0–8. Available: https://www.campuspride.org/wp-content/uploads/campuspride2010lgbtreportssummary.pdf
• 65. Wade L. American Hookup: The new culture of sex on campus. 1st ed. W. W. Norton & Company; 2017.
• 66. Cohen R, Klahr R, Vedantam S, Penman M, Boyle T, Schmidt J, et al. Hookup Culture: The Unspoken Rules Of Sex On College Campuses [Internet]. Available: http://www.npr.org/2017/02/14/514578429/hookup-culture-the-unspoken-rules-of-sex-on-college-campuses

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

Sexual assault and rape on U.S. college campuses: Research roundup

2014 review of government reports and scholarship on the issue of sexual assault and rape on campus, as well as prevention, risks and related cultural dynamics.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Kristina Mastropasqua, The Journalist's Resource September 22, 2015

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/education/sexual-assault-rape-us-college-campuses-research-roundup/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Institutions of higher learning across the United States have been rocked by reports of rape and sexual assault . Federal, state and local officials have become involved , as schools work to revise their policies and procedures to prevent further incidents. A survey commissioned by the Association of American Universities, the results of which were released in September 2015 , found that more than 27% of female college seniors reported having experienced some form of unwanted sexual contact since entering college. Meanwhile, two high-profile lawsuits have kept the topic of college sexual assault in the national spotlight. In 2015, a former Florida State University student filed a lawsuit against the school for its handling of her sexual assault report and another against former Florida State football star  Jameis Winston, who she has accused of raping her in 2012 .

The research on many facets of these problems is incomplete, but new reports and data-rich studies can help deepen perspective. In December 2014, the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics released a report focusing on nearly 20 years of data related to rape and sexual assault among women ages 18 to 24. In 2014, President Obama appointed the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assaults. During the research phase, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) provided the White House with an extensive list of recommendations urging “the task force to remain focused on the true cause of the problem,” pointing out that rape is “not caused by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions of a small percentage of the community to commit a violent crime.” In fact, RAINN points out that research suggests 90% of rapes at colleges are perpetrated by 3% of college men — indicating a real issue of repeat offenders.

Part of RAINN’s recommendations includes a three-tiered approach to prevention: (1) Bystander intervention education: empowering community members to act in response to acts of sexual violence; (2) Risk-reduction messaging: empowering members of the community to take steps to increase their personal safety; and (3), General education to promote understanding of the law, particularly as it relates to the ability to consent.

Similarly, researchers with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Justice prepared a report, “ Preventing Sexual Violence on College Campuses: Lessons from Research and Practice ,” for use by the White House Task Force. The report cites the proven effectiveness of high-school sexual violence prevention programs, which might be effectively translated into college campaigns. One of the report’s authors, Sarah DeGue, cites a 2013 study — a systematic qualitative review of risk and protective factors for sexual violence perpetration — that finds a high correlation between sexual assault and alcohol use. Therefore, college campuses that can curb the number of nearby liquor stores and instances of binge drinking could potentially reduce the number of assaults.

Although there are thousands of colleges and universities in the United States, the CDC reports that just “over 125 college and university campuses across the U.S. have affiliations with CDC’s Rape Prevention and Education program to facilitate the implementation of sexual violence prevention strategies and activities.” While much more research is needed in order to determine meaningful methodologies in preventing rape and sexual assault on campuses, the report suggests, some significant first steps would be for universities to work to build trust between administrators and the student body and to implement routine anonymous surveys for students to safely express their experiences with sexual (mis)conduct on campus.

After conducting thousands of interviews with various stakeholders, the White House released its final report in April 2014: “ Not Alone: The First Report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault .” By increasing awareness and researching new methods for prevention, the project’s goal is to dramatically reduce the number of students — primarily female — who are sexually assaulted on campus, which stands at one in five, according to the federal Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study of 2006. A 2014 report from the National Crime Victimization Survey suggests a lower rate among college students, and journalists have noted that there is now a “dueling data” quality to these conflicting reports. (The 2006 CSA Study found that 6.1% of college males were victims of either attempted or completed sexual assault.)

The “Not Alone” report makes a series of key recommendations that begin with gauging the scope of the crisis through routine, anonymous, campus-wide surveys. From there, the Task Force encourages universities to engage their male students and encourage them to step in when someone is in trouble and become part of the solution. In addition the government has created a new website, NotAlone.gov , which provides more transparency on the issue by providing information and pathways for reporting problems.

The report also encourages universities to work to clarify what is — and what is not — consent. This is a major debate that both Time magazine and Philadelphia Magazine have covered recently. A 2013 study explores variables, such as violence, intoxication, and prior romantic relationships, that can impact acknowledged versus unacknowledged sexual assault among college women. Research has found that incoming first-year college students subscribe to a wide variety of “myths” about rape.

Below is a selection of further studies that explore the general issue of sexual assault and rape on campus, as well as prevention, risks and related cultural dynamics:

“Sexual Assault on the College Campus: Fraternity Affiliation, Male Peer Support, and Low Self-Control” Franklin, Courtney A.; Bouffard, Leana Allen; Pratt, Travis C. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 2012, Vol. 39, 1457, doi: 10.1177/0093854812456527.

Abstract: “Research on college sexual assault has focused on offender behavior to understand why men perpetrate sexual violence. Dominant theories have incorporated forms of male peer support paying particular attention to the impact of rape-supportive social relationships on woman abuse. In contrast, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime proposes that low self-control predicts crime and other related life outcomes – including the kinds of antisocial peer relationships that the male peer support model contends causes sexual violence. The exclusion of measures of self-control on sexual assault may result in a misspecified peer support model. Accordingly, the current research empirically tests Schwartz and DeKeseredy’s male peer support model and examines the role of self-control in the larger male peer support model of sexual assault. Implications for theory and research are discussed.”

“A Randomized Controlled Trial Targeting Alcohol Use and Sexual Assault Risk among College Women at High Risk for Victimization” Gilmore, Amanda K.; Lewis, Melissa A.; George, William. Behaviour Research and Therapy , August 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2015.08.007.

Abstract: “Current sexual assault risk reduction programs do not target alcohol use despite the widespread knowledge that alcohol use is a risk factor for being victimized. The current study assessed the effectiveness of a web-based combined sexual assault risk and alcohol use reduction program using a randomized control trial. A total of 207 college women between the ages of 18 and 20 who engaged in heavy episodic drinking were randomized to one of five conditions: full assessment only control condition, sexual assault risk reduction condition, alcohol use reduction condition, combined sexual assault risk and alcohol use reduction condition, and a minimal assessment only condition. Participants completed a 3-month follow-up survey on alcohol-related sexual assault outcomes, sexual assault outcomes, and alcohol use outcomes. Significant interactions revealed that women with higher incidence and severity of sexual assault at baseline experienced less incapacitated attempted or completed rapes, less incidence/severity of sexual assaults, and engaged in less heavy episodic drinking compared to the control condition at the 3-month follow-up. Web-based risk reduction programs targeting both sexual assault and alcohol use may be the most effective way to target the highest risk sample of college students for sexual assault: those with a sexual assault history and those who engage in heavy episodic drinking.”

“Correlates of Rape while Intoxicated in a National Sample of College Women” Mohler, Meichun; Dowdall, George W.; Koss, Mary P.; Wechsler, Henry. Journal of Studies on Alcohol , January 2004, Vol. 65, 37-45.

Abstract: “ Objective: Heavy alcohol use is widespread among college students, particularly in those social situations where the risk of rape rises. Few studies have provided information on rapes of college women that occur when they are intoxicated. The purpose of the present study was to present prevalence data for rape under the condition of intoxication when the victim is unable to consent and to identify college and individual-level risk factors associated with that condition. Method: The study utilizes data from 119 schools participating in three Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study surveys. The analytic sample of randomly selected students includes 8,567 women in the 1997 survey, 8,425 in the 1999 survey, and 6,988 in the 2001 survey. Results : Roughly one in 20 (4.7%) women reported being raped. Nearly three quarters (72%) of the victims experienced rape while intoxicated. Women who were under 21, were white, resided in a sorority house, used illicit drugs, drank heavily in high school and attended colleges with high rates of heavy episodic drinking were at higher risk of rape while intoxicated. Conclusions : The high proportion of rapes found to occur when women were intoxicated indicates the need for alcohol prevention programs on campuses that address sexual assault, both to educate men about what constitutes rape and to advise women of risky situations. The findings that some campus environments are associated with higher levels of both drinking and rape will help target rape prevention programs at colleges.”

“ Women’s Risk Perception and Sexual Victimization: A Review of the Literature ” Gidycz, Christine A.; McNamara, John R.; Edwards, Katie M. Aggression and Violent Behavior, September-October 2012, Vol. 11, Issue 5, 441-456, doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2006.01.004.

Abstract: “This article reviews empirical and theoretical studies that examined the relationship between risk perception and sexual victimization in women. Studies examining women’s general perceptions of risk for sexual assault as well as their ability to identify and respond to threat in specific situations are reviewed. Theoretical discussions of the optimistic bias and cognitive–ecological models of risk recognition are discussed in order to account for findings in the literature. Implications for interventions with women as well as recommendations for future research are provided.”

“Bystander Education Training for Campus Sexual Assault Prevention: An Initial Meta-analysis” Katz, J.; Moore, J. Violence and Victims , 2013, Vol. 28, Issue 6, 1054-1067.

Abstract: “The present meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of bystander education programs for preventing sexual assault in college communities. Undergraduates trained in bystander education for sexual assault were expected to report more favorable attitudes, behavioral proclivities, and actual behaviors relative to untrained controls. Data from 12 studies of college students (N = 2,926) were used to calculate 32 effect sizes. Results suggested moderate effects of bystander education on both bystander efficacy and intentions to help others at risk. Smaller but significant effects were observed regarding self-reported bystander helping behaviors, (lower) rape-supportive attitudes, and (lower) rape proclivity, but not perpetration. These results provide initial support for the effectiveness of in-person bystander education training. Nonetheless, future longitudinal research evaluating behavioral outcomes and sexual assault incidence is needed.”

“Fear of Rape among College Women: A Social Psychological Analysis” Pryor, D.W.; Hughes, M.R. Violence Vict. , 2013, Vol. 28, Issue 3, 443-465.

Abstract: “This article examines social psychological underpinnings of fear of rape among college women. We analyze data from a survey of 1,905 female undergraduates to test the influence of 5 subjective perceptions about vulnerability and harm: unique invulnerability, gender risk, defensibility, anticipatory shame, and attribution of injury. We include 3 sources of crime exposure in our models: past sexual victimization, past noncontact violent victimization, and structural risk measured by age, parent’s income, and race. Separate measures of fear of stranger and acquaintance rape are modeled, including variables tapping current versus anticipatory fear, fear on campus versus everywhere, and fear anytime versus at night. The data show that fear of rape among college women appears more grounded in constructed perceptions of harm and danger than in past violent experiences.”

“Necessary But Not Sufficient: Sexual Assault Information on College and University Websites” Lund, Emily M.; Thomas, Katie B. Psychology of Women Quarterly , August 2015. doi: 10.1177/0361684315598286.

Abstract: “The objective of our study was to investigate the availability, location, and content of sexual assault information presented on college and university websites. A random sample of 102 accredited, non-profit, bachelors-granting U.S. colleges and universities was selected for webcoding. Websites were coded for the availability and location of sexual assault information, including what resources and information were provided and whether topics such as date rape, consent, and victim blaming were addressed. Ninety (88.2%) of the 102 colleges and universities in our sample had sexual assault information available in their domains. University policy (83.3%) and contact information for law enforcement (72.2%) and other resources (56.7–82.2%) were often included, but most websites failed to provide information on issues related to sexual assault, such as discouraging victim blaming (35.6%) and encouraging affirmative consent (30.0%). Colleges and universities should consider updating the sexual assault information on their websites with the assistance of local, expert practitioners in order to provide more comprehensive, organized, useful, and user-friendly information on sexual assault prevention and intervention.”

“The Role of University Health Centers in Intervention and Prevention of Campus Sexual Assault” Buchholz, Laura. Journal of the American Medical Association , August 2015, Vol. 314. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.8213.

Summary: This article offers insight into the role that university health centers play in preventing campus sexual assault and providing support to assault victims through programs in areas such as counseling, medical care and survivor advocacy.

“To Whom Do College Women Confide Following Sexual Assault? A Prospective Study of Predictors of Sexual Assault Disclosure and Social Reactions” Orchowski, Lindsay M., Gidycz, Christine A. Violence Against Women, March 2012, Vol. 18, No. 3, 264-288, doi: 10.1177/1077801212442917.

Abstract: “A prospective methodology was used to explore predictors of sexual assault disclosure among college women, identify who women tell about sexual victimization, and examine the responses of informal support providers (N = 374). Women most often confided in a female peer. Increased coping via seeking emotional support, strong attachments, and high tendency to disclose stressful information predicted adolescent sexual assault disclosure and disclosure over the 7-month interim. Less acquaintance with the perpetrator predicted disclosure over the follow-up, including experiences of revictimization. Victim and perpetrator alcohol use at the time of the assault also predicted disclosure over the follow-up. Implications are presented.”

“Community Responsibility for Preventing Sexual Violence: A Pilot Study with Campus Greeks and Intercollegiate Athletes” Moynihan, Mary M., Banyard, Victoria L. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, October 2008, Vol. 36, Issue 1-2, 23-38, doi:10.1080/10852350802022274.

Summary: “Previous research has noted higher incidences of sexual violence on campus among members of campus Greeks and athletes and the need to do prevention programs with them. This article presents the results of an exploratory pilot study of a sexual violence prevention program with members of one fraternity, sorority, men’s and women’s intercollegiate athletic team. The program, experimentally evaluated and found to be effective with a general sample of undergraduates, was used to determine its efficacy specifically with Greeks and athletes. The model on which the program is based calls for prevention efforts that take a wider community approach rather than simply targeting individuals as potential perpetrators or victims. Results from repeated-measures analysis of variance indicate that the program worked overall. Future directions are discussed.”

Keywords: crime, higher education, sex crimes

About The Author

Kristina Mastropasqua

Articles on Sexual assault on campus

Displaying 1 - 20 of 38 articles.

Fieldwork can be challenging for female scientists. Here are 5 ways to make it better

Sarah Hamylton , University of Wollongong ; Ana Vila Concejo , University of Sydney ; Hannah Power , University of Newcastle , and Shari L Gallop , University of Waikato

Campus sexual assault prevention programs could do more to prevent violence, even after a decade-long federal mandate

Heather Hensman Kettrey , Clemson University and Martie Thompson , Appalachian State University

‘More obviously needs to be done’: how to make Australian universities safe from sexual violence

Dr Allison Henry , UNSW Sydney

Addressing campus sexual violence: New risk assessment tool can help administrators make difficult decisions

Sandy Jung , MacEwan University and Jesmen Mendoza , Toronto Metropolitan University

Alcohol is becoming more common in sexual assault among college students

Mary P. Koss , University of Arizona

Sexual assault and harassment on campus: universities haven’t made reporting easy. They need effective regulation

1 in 3 uni students have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime. They demand action on their vision of a safer society

Anastasia Powell , RMIT University

The long fight against sexual assault and harassment at universities

Catherine Carstairs , University of Guelph and Kathryn Hughes , University of Guelph

Don’t just blame the Libs for treating universities harshly. Labor’s 1980s policies ushered in government interference

Hannah Forsyth , Australian Catholic University and Geoffrey Sherington , University of Sydney

With support for Bill Cosby, Phylicia Rashad becomes just one of several deans to tweet themselves into trouble

George Justice , Arizona State University

Politicians need expert help to change culture of sexual violence and impunity. We don’t need yet another review to tell us that

Andrea Durbach , UNSW Sydney

Tweets show what hinders reports of sexual assault and harassment on campus – and why the new federal Title IX rules may be a step back

Jason Whiting , Brigham Young University

Students less likely to report sexual harassment when the perpetrator is a professor

Stephen Aguilar , University of Southern California

Worried about sexual harassment – or false allegations? Our team asked Americans about their experiences and beliefs

Anita Raj , University of California, San Diego

Should you apply to a college that has had a recent scandal?

Jonathan Smith , Georgia State University and Patrick Rooney , University of Toronto

Students don’t feel safe on public transport but many have no choice but to use it

Carolyn Whitzman , The University of Melbourne ; Jason Thompson , The University of Melbourne , and Rewa Marathe , The University of Melbourne

Universities have made progress on responding to sexual assault, but there’s more to be done

Nicola Henry , RMIT University

Betsy DeVos has little to show after 2 years in office

Dustin Hornbeck , Miami University

University students aren’t reporting sexual assault, and new guidelines don’t address why

Harvard sexual harassment case scars the institution as well as victims

Jeffrey W. Rubin , Boston University

Related Topics

• campus rape
• Higher ed attainment
• Sexual assault
• Sexual harassment
• Sexual harassment on campus
• Sexual violence
• Universities
• US higher education

Top contributors

Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, University of Memphis

Research Fellow, Australian Human Rights Institute, Faculty of Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney

Emeritus Professor, Faculty of Law, UNSW Sydney

Professor & Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Social and Global Studies Centre, RMIT University

Professor of Sociology, Queensland University of Technology

Housing Policy Researcher, Expert Advisor, Housing Assessment Resource Tools and Adjunct Professor, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

Associate professor, University of Wollongong

Professor of Criminology, Durham University

Professor of Psychology, Georgia State University

Executive Director of Newcomb Institute and Professor of Public Health, Tulane University, Tulane University

Criminal Law Researcher, Deakin University

Assistant Professor of Education, University of Southern California

Service Leader - Coastal, University of Waikato

Dean of the College of Natural Sciences, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, UMass Amherst

Professor, Director, Open Door: Understanding and Supporting Service Personnel and their Families, Flinders University

• X (Twitter)
• Unfollow topic Follow topic

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

How Prevalent Is Campus Sexual Assault in the United States?

Sexual assault on college campuses continues to make national headlines. We know the victims suffer short- and long-term health problems, such as sexually transmitted infections, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, chronic illness and post-traumatic stress disorder. We also know that college students who have been sexually assaulted are more likely to engage in risky behaviors, such as binge drinking and drug use, and have lowered academic achievement, and they may be at greater risk for revictimization.

A number of government and campus initiatives aim to address the problem. For instance, in September 2014, the White House partnered with stakeholders to launch "It's On Us" and "Not Alone," national public awareness campaigns focusing on preventing and responding to campus sexual assault.

But to truly tackle sexual assault on college campuses, we must understand how often it occurs. How many college students are sexually assaulted, and what factors are associated with higher or lower prevalence rates?

Official estimates vary widely. To date, no studies have systematically reviewed prevalence findings in the research on college-based sexual victimization, which would provide greater insight into the extent of the problem, the types of sexual victimization that students experience, and how study methodologies influence the prevalence rates found.

To help fill this knowledge gap, we systematically gathered prevalence estimates for campus sexual assault in the U.S. that were published between January 2000 and February 2015. We defined "prevalence" as the reported percentage of study participants who reported sexual victimization since entering college or during a study follow-up period or time frame while attending college.

Learn about the definitions used in our review.

We examined peer-reviewed studies, dissertations and reports on a wide range of topics, such as health outcomes, risk factors, and evaluations of campus intervention or prevention programs. We assessed and synthesized prevalence findings, research designs and methods, sampling techniques, and measures, including types of sexual victimization.

Our goal was to better understand the range of prevalence findings currently available and the factors behind the variation. We also wanted to present recommendations for campus prevention and response strategies and propose research questions for future studies on campus sexual assault.

An Incomplete Picture

We found that estimates of completed forcible rape, incapacitated rape, unwanted sexual contact and sexual coercion on college campuses in the U.S. vary widely. Unwanted sexual contact and sexual coercion appear to be most prevalent, followed by incapacitated rape and attempted or completed forcible rape.

The variability is due in large part to differences in measurement and definitions of sexual assault among studies. To date, the majority of research on campus sexual assault has been limited to white, heterosexual, female students attending four-year colleges. Few studies measure prevalence among racial and ethnic minority students or other students who may be particularly at risk for campus sexual assault, such as lesbian and bisexual women, sorority women, students with disabilities, and students who have suffered prior victimization. Some studies included in our review found higher rates of sexual assault among these students.

Only one study sampled students at vocational and trade schools, so it is unclear whether the prevalence of sexual assault among nontraditional college students differs from that among traditional full-time students attending four-year colleges.

Despite the discrepancies, the studies we reviewed — even those with lower estimates — all point to the same troubling truth: A substantial proportion of college students are sexually assaulted.

Recommendations

Students experience different forms of sexual victimization, and prevalence rates for each form often vary from campus to campus. Schools should start with a detailed understanding of the types of sexual victimization occurring on their campuses and appropriately tailor prevention and intervention strategies, treatment for victims, and campus response.

We found a high prevalence of unwanted sexual contact and sexual coercion; therefore, prevention efforts should include a focus on the dynamics of these two forms of victimization. Further, the disproportionate rates of victimization among LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning) students, students with disabilities, and racial and ethnic minority students highlight the need for responses that are inclusive and culturally specific.

When researching campus sexual assault, it is important to clearly define and separately measure the range of experiences that may fall under "unwanted sexual contact," "forcible rape," "incapacitated rape" and "drug- or alcohol-facilitated rape." Standardized definitions can help us better understand how prevalence rates vary and how to develop appropriate prevention and intervention strategies for various types of sexual victimization. Studies should continue to include behaviorally specific measures, such as providing students with examples of unwanted sexual experiences. Also, measuring victimization "since entering college" will help distinguish campus sexual assault from childhood, adolescent and lifetime sexual victimization.

Future studies should measure sexual victimization among students who may be at greater risk for sexual assault, such as LGBTQ students, students with past histories of sexual victimization and students with disabilities. Future research should also explore whether sexual assault among students at alternative college education programs is similar to or different from sexual assault among traditional college students; this will help nontraditional programs develop appropriate intervention and prevention responses for students. Additionally, researchers should consider contextual and cultural differences between public and private universities — for example, small liberal arts colleges versus large public state universities — as well as four-year colleges and vocational or trade schools when measuring the prevalence of sexual victimization on different types of campuses.

Defining Sexual Assault

We used the following definitions in our review of sexual assault on U.S. campuses:

• Prevalence: the reported percentage of study participants who reported sexual victimization since entering college or during a study follow-up period or time frame while attending college
• Unwanted sexual contact: attempted or completed unwanted kissing, fondling, petting or other sexual touching using physical force, threat of physical force, verbal coercion or a combination of these, but excluding vaginal, anal and oral intercourse
• Sexual coercion: completed unwanted sexual contact (kissing, fondling or other sexual touching) or completed vaginal, anal or oral intercourse through nonviolent means (such as intimidation, pressure, lies, threats to end a relationship or continual arguments)
• Incapacitated or alcohol-related sexual assault: completed vaginal, anal or oral intercourse while victim was intoxicated or on drugs
• Broadly defined sexual assault: involving multiple forms of sexual victimization, including rape, sexual coercion, incapacitated or alcohol-related sexual assault, and unwanted sexual contact
• Physically forced completed and attempted rape: vaginal, anal or oral intercourse using physical force or threat of force

Return to text .

For More Information

For a detailed discussion of our review and findings, see " Campus Sexual Assault: A Systematic Review of Prevalence Research from 2000 to 2015 ," in Trauma, Violence & Abuse.

Learn more about NIJ's research on campus sexual assault.

About This Article

This artice appeared in NIJ Journal Issue 277 , September 2016.

About the author

Lisa Fedina is a graduate research assistant at NIJ and a Ph.D. student in the School of Social Work at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. Jennifer Lynne Holmes is a graduate research assistant at NIJ and a Ph.D. student in the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. Bethany Backes is a social science analyst in NIJ's Office of Research and Evaluation, where she directs NIJ's program of research on violence against women.

Cite this Article

Read more about:, related publications.

• NIJ Journal Issue No. 277

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Sexual assault incidents among college undergraduates: Prevalence and factors associated with risk

Affiliations.

• 1 Division of Gender, Sexuality and Health, Departments of Psychiatry and Sociomedical Sciences, New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, United States of America.
• 2 Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, New York, New York, United States of America.
• 3 Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America.
• 4 Division of Biostatistics, Department of Psychiatry, New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, United States of America.
• 5 Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America.
• 6 Social Intervention Group, School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America.
• 7 Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America.
• 8 Department of Youth, Family, and Community Studies, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States of America.
• 9 Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America.
• 10 Department of Sociology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America.
• PMID: 29117226
• PMCID: PMC5695602
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186471
• Correction: Sexual assault incidents among college undergraduates: Prevalence and factors associated with risk. PLOS ONE Staff. PLOS ONE Staff. PLoS One. 2018 Jan 25;13(1):e0192129. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192129. eCollection 2018. PLoS One. 2018. PMID: 29370314 Free PMC article.

Sexual assault on college campuses is a public health issue. However varying research methodologies (e.g., different sexual assault definitions, measures, assessment timeframes) and low response rates hamper efforts to define the scope of the problem. To illuminate the complexity of campus sexual assault, we collected survey data from a large population-based random sample of undergraduate students from Columbia University and Barnard College in New York City, using evidence based methods to maximize response rates and sample representativeness, and behaviorally specific measures of sexual assault to accurately capture victimization rates. This paper focuses on student experiences of different types of sexual assault victimization, as well as sociodemographic, social, and risk environment correlates. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and logistic regression were used to estimate prevalences and test associations. Since college entry, 22% of students reported experiencing at least one incident of sexual assault (defined as sexualized touching, attempted penetration [oral, anal, vaginal, other], or completed penetration). Women and gender nonconforming students reported the highest rates (28% and 38%, respectively), although men also reported sexual assault (12.5%). Across types of assault and gender groups, incapacitation due to alcohol and drug use and/or other factors was the perpetration method reported most frequently (> 50%); physical force (particularly for completed penetration in women) and verbal coercion were also commonly reported. Factors associated with increased risk for sexual assault included non-heterosexual identity, difficulty paying for basic necessities, fraternity/sorority membership, participation in more casual sexual encounters ("hook ups") vs. exclusive/monogamous or no sexual relationships, binge drinking, and experiencing sexual assault before college. High rates of re-victimization during college were reported across gender groups. Our study is consistent with prevalence findings previously reported. Variation in types of assault and methods of perpetration experienced across gender groups highlight the need to develop prevention strategies tailored to specific risk groups.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Fig 1. SHIFT survey question on experience…

Fig 1. SHIFT survey question on experience of sexual assault.

Fig 2. Overlap of different types of…

Fig 2. Overlap of different types of sexual assaults experienced by n = 350 students…

Similar articles

• College Sexual Assault and Campus Climate for Sexual- and Gender-Minority Undergraduate Students. Coulter RWS, Rankin SR. Coulter RWS, et al. J Interpers Violence. 2020 Mar;35(5-6):1351-1366. doi: 10.1177/0886260517696870. Epub 2017 Mar 15. J Interpers Violence. 2020. PMID: 29294669 Free PMC article.
• Prevalence and Correlates of Sexual Assault Perpetration and Ambiguous Consent in a Representative Sample of College Students. Walsh K, Sarvet AL, Wall M, Gilbert L, Santelli J, Khan S, Thompson MP, Reardon L, Hirsch JS, Mellins CA. Walsh K, et al. J Interpers Violence. 2021 Jul;36(13-14):NP7005-NP7026. doi: 10.1177/0886260518823293. Epub 2019 Jan 13. J Interpers Violence. 2021. PMID: 30636558
• Sexual Assault Supportive Attitudes: Rape Myth Acceptance and Token Resistance in Greek and Non-Greek College Students From Two University Samples in the United States. Canan SN, Jozkowski KN, Crawford BL. Canan SN, et al. J Interpers Violence. 2018 Nov;33(22):3502-3530. doi: 10.1177/0886260516636064. Epub 2016 Mar 3. J Interpers Violence. 2018. PMID: 26944340
• Prevalence of Sexual Assault Victimization Among College Men, Aged 18-24: A Review. Forsman RL. Forsman RL. J Evid Inf Soc Work. 2017 Nov-Dec;14(6):421-432. doi: 10.1080/23761407.2017.1369204. Epub 2017 Sep 12. J Evid Inf Soc Work. 2017. PMID: 28895801 Review.
• Factors Correlated With Sexual Assault Victimization Among College Students in the United States: A Meta-Analysis. Spencer CM, Rivas-Koehl M, Astle S, Toews ML, McAlister P, Anders KM. Spencer CM, et al. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2024 Jan;25(1):246-259. doi: 10.1177/15248380221146800. Epub 2023 Feb 1. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2024. PMID: 36722372 Review.
• A dataset without a code book: ethnography and open science. Khan S, Hirsch JS, Zeltzer-Zubida O. Khan S, et al. Front Sociol. 2024 Mar 1;9:1308029. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1308029. eCollection 2024. Front Sociol. 2024. PMID: 38505356 Free PMC article. Review.
• "They Don't See Us": Asian Students' Perceptions of Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment on Three California Public University Campuses. Lai J, Park E, Amabile CJ, Boyce SC, Fielding-Miller R, Swendeman D, Oaks L, Marvel D, Majnoonian A, Silverman J, Wagman J. Lai J, et al. J Interpers Violence. 2024 Aug;39(15-16):3619-3650. doi: 10.1177/08862605241235912. Epub 2024 Mar 12. J Interpers Violence. 2024. PMID: 38470066 Free PMC article.
• PTSD Symptoms Among College Students: Linkages with Familial Risk, Borderline Personality, and Sexual Assault. Tyler KA, Ray CM. Tyler KA, et al. J Child Sex Abus. 2024 Feb;33(2):127-145. doi: 10.1080/10538712.2024.2326543. Epub 2024 Mar 8. J Child Sex Abus. 2024. PMID: 38456682
• 3-month prevalence of unwanted sexual contact victimization in a national sample of college students: differences by race, gender identity, and sexual identity. Fedina L, Bender AE, Royer M, Ashwell L, Tolman R, Herrenkohl TI. Fedina L, et al. BMC Public Health. 2024 Feb 22;24(1):572. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-18018-7. BMC Public Health. 2024. PMID: 38388526 Free PMC article.
• Associations among sexual assault history, alcohol use, blackouts, and blackout intentions among college women. López G, Merrill JE, Ward RM. López G, et al. J Am Coll Health. 2024 Jan 26:1-8. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2023.2299415. Online ahead of print. J Am Coll Health. 2024. PMID: 38277508
• Fisher BS, Cullen FT, Turner MG. The Sexual Victimization of College Women. Research Report. 2000; Available: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED449712
• Krebs CP, Lindquist CH, Warner TD. The Campus Sexual Assault Study (CSA) Final Report: Performance Period: January 2005 Through December 2007. 2007.
• Kilpatrick D, Resnick H, Ruggiero KJ, Conoscenti LM, McCauley J. Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape: A National Study [Internet]. 2007 Jul. Report No.: 219181. Available: http://www.antoniocasella.eu/archila/Kilpatrick_drug_forcible_rape_2007.pdf
• Fedina L, Holmes JL, Backes BL. Campus Sexual Assault: A Systematic Review of Prevalence Research From 2000 to 2015. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2016;Epub ahead of print: 1–18. - PubMed
• Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Walters ML, Merrick MT, et al. The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. 2011 Nov.
• Search in MeSH

Related information

• Cited in Books

Grants and funding

• P2C HD058486/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central
• Public Library of Science

Other Literature Sources

• scite Smart Citations
• MedlinePlus Health Information

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies and similar tracking technologies described in our privacy policy .

White Paper

Framing Well-Being in a College Campus Setting

This white paper uncovers new trends, key insights, and future questions, examining the shift from traditional wellness to a holistic approach on college campuses..

This white paper, sponsored by the American College Health Foundation (ACHF) and supported through an educational grant from Aetna Student Health, delves into the well-being efforts at diverse higher education institutions. Through interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders, the study reveals the latest trends and common practices, highlighting the transition from a wellness paradigm to a comprehensive well-being approach. Key themes include the absence of a universal definition of well-being, a shift from “wellness” to “well-being,” and the move towards systemic, environmental strategies. The paper emphasizes innovative approaches to tackle health disparities among marginalized populations and offers valuable insights for future research and campus initiatives aimed at creating cultures of care.

If your campus is interested in administering this survey to staff, students, and faculty, please contact Christine Kukich for pricing and availability.

Contributor Info

American College Health Foundation with support from Aetna Student Health through an educational grant.

Topic College Health & Wellness Programming, DEIJA, Research & Survey Data, Well-being

Audience Campus Executives, Health & Wellness Center Administrators, Health Promotion Specialists, Mental Health Providers, Student Affairs

Resource Type White Paper

Publish Date December 1, 2019

Related Resources

See all resources, the state of sexual and reproductive health on campus, addressing gun violence on college and university campuses: an acha white paper, achf emotional well-being survey: technical report on tool development, related posts.

New Report Sheds Light on the Impact of Sexual and Reproductive Health Legislation

New Assessment Measures 14 Dimensions of Student Well-Being

Acha’s statement on the recent affirmative action decision by the u.s. supreme court, get acha news right in your inbox.

All ACHA members receive The Source, our weekly newsletter with the latest ACHA updates and college health news. Not a member but want to receive news and announcements from ACHA? Click the button below to subscribe!

Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior

• Madison, Wisconsin
• WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS/MANAGEMENT & HUMAN RESOURCES
• Faculty-Full Time
• Opening at: Aug 5 2024 at 13:30 CDT

Job Summary:

The Management and Human Resources (MHR) Department in the Wisconsin School of Business seeks a full-time, nine-month, tenure track appointment to begin August 18, 2025. We especially seek candidates with a strong record of research in the fields of organizational behavior, social psychology, or Sociology. The position would be responsible for teaching graduate and undergraduate students in management and related fields, conducting scholarly research and performing university service. MHR's undergraduate and Masters programs prepare students for careers in human resources, leadership, and/or entrepreneurship. Our progressive curriculum based on current research is taught by award winning faculty. Degree programs are designed to create superior educational experiences for undergraduate, masters, and PhD students. Faculty expertise includes research on organizational behavior, human resource management, diversity, entrepreneurship, strategy, and innovation. The department houses the Strategic Human Resource Management Center, the Bolz Center for Arts Administration, and the Weinert Center for Entrepreneurship. We are also proud to be part of a great university with excellent resources available to both faculty and students. The Wisconsin School of Business offers degrees in Management, Human Resources, and Entrepreneurship, at the undergraduate, masters, and PhD level. The School currently enrolls approximately 2,800 undergraduates, 400 masters, and 80 PhD students.

Responsibilities:

- Create and maintain a strong program of research - Teach undergraduate and graduate level courses in the Wisconsin School of Business - Provide classroom and individual instruction for undergraduate and graduate degree-seeking students - Contribute to the intellectual and academic life of the department. University and community service will be expected as appropriate.

Institutional Statement on Diversity:

Diversity is a source of strength, creativity, and innovation for UW-Madison. We value the contributions of each person and respect the profound ways their identity, culture, background, experience, status, abilities, and opinion enrich the university community. We commit ourselves to the pursuit of excellence in teaching, research, outreach, and diversity as inextricably linked goals. The University of Wisconsin-Madison fulfills its public mission by creating a welcoming and inclusive community for people from every background - people who as students, faculty, and staff serve Wisconsin and the world. For more information on diversity and inclusion on campus, please visit: Diversity and Inclusion

Required PhD in Management or related field required by start date.

Qualifications:

Required: Candidates will have a research program under way that is likely to result in publications in top tier journals as well as demonstrable skills that suggest future excellence in teaching.

Full Time: 100% It is anticipated this position requires work be performed in-person, onsite, at a designated campus work location.

Appointment Type, Duration:

Ongoing/Renewable

Anticipated Begin Date:

AUGUST 18, 2025

Negotiable ACADEMIC (9 months) The employee in this position can expect to receive benefits such as generous vacation, holidays, and paid time off; competitive insurances and savings accounts; retirement benefits.

Additional Information:

Diversity and inclusion are primary values for the Wisconsin School of Business and are integral to achieving our strategic goals. We seek candidates with an awareness of and commitment to the principles of diversity and inclusion across all spectrums. Our school is committed to continuously increasing the cultural competence of its staff and faculty members through school-wide forums and professional development opportunities.

How to Apply:

To ensure full consideration, complete applications must be received by no later than October 15, 2024. However, the position will remain open and applications may be considered until the position is filled. Please complete the online application. You will be asked to include: - Cover Letter - Detailed curriculum vitae that includes a complete list of publications. - A single document containing research statement, teaching statement, existing published and/or working papers, including job market paper. - Names and contact information of three references. References will be contacted via email and asked to upload their letters of recommendations at the time of application submission. All materials must be submitted electronically in pdf format. NOTE: - Unless confidentiality is requested in your online application, information regarding the names of applicants must be released upon request. Finalists cannot be guaranteed confidentiality. - Electronic submissions are required. Employment will require an institutional reference check regarding any misconduct. To be considered, applicants must upload a signed 'Authorization to Release Information' form as part of the application. The authorization form and a definition of 'misconduct' can be found here: https://hr.wisc.edu/institutional-reference-check/

Se Yang [email protected] 608-263-2975 Relay Access (WTRS): 7-1-1. See RELAY_SERVICE for further information.

Official Title:

Assistant Professor(FA040)

Department(s):

A12-WISCONSIN SCH OF BUSINESS/MANAGEMENT & HR

Employment Class:

Job number:, the university of wisconsin-madison is an equal opportunity and affirmative action employer..

You will be redirected to the application to launch your career momentarily. Thank you!

Frequently Asked Questions

Applicant Tutorial

Disability Accommodations

Pay Transparency Policy Statement

Refer a Friend

You've sent this job to a friend!

Website feedback, questions or accessibility issues: [email protected] .

Learn more about accessibility at UW–Madison .

© 2016–2024 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System • Privacy Statement

Before You Go..

Would you like to sign-up for job alerts.

Thank you for subscribing to UW–Madison job alerts!

July 27 – August 2, 2024  |  No. 510

A decade after the establishment of Our Watch, sources say the framework to end gendered violence was based on research that was incomplete and modified for political reasons. By Kristine Ziwica .

Exclusive: health authority suppressed gendered violence research.

A little over a decade ago, Australia set out on an audacious and ambitious strategy to end violence against women and their children before it starts.

Today, however, police reports of sexual assault have risen for the 12th consecutive year. In 2022/23, femicide was up 28 per cent.

Experts in gendered violence, public health and frontline services have told The Saturday Paper that they have serious concerns about the basis – and effectiveness – of Australia’s current approach to “primary prevention”.

Among a series of revelations, they claim important evidence about the role of alcohol and the socioeconomic factors in men’s violence were suppressed in a report that formed the basis of the current strategy. The approach, they say, is also not in keeping with best practice in either public health or behaviour change theory.

In May, following a meeting of national cabinet, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the Commonwealth would undertake an expert-led “rapid review” of best practice, evidence-based approaches to prevent gender-based violence, which will be made public after it’s presented to national cabinet in September.

This follows publication in April of a white paper titled “Rethinking Primary Prevention” by journalist and advocate Jess Hill and the UNSW criminologist Michael Salter, which raised concerns that many in the sector had been voicing privately. Hill has since been appointed to the expert review panel, alongside others, including Dr Anne Summers. 

At the Commonwealth level, the “prevention” of violence against women has come to mean two things: Our Watch, the national foundation to prevent violence against women, informed by its guiding policy framework, Change the story; and the Department of Social Services’ national social marketing campaign, “Stop it at the Start”.

In 2014, a year after Our Watch was officially launched, Salter was asked by VicHealth to conduct a review of the evidence of the so-called “drivers” of violence against women. Once completed, the review was passed to Our Watch to inform the national framework. He tells The Saturday Paper that’s when he had a series of surprising conversations.

“I delivered what had been asked of me, and there were requests made to delete two areas of evidence,” he says. “I was asked to remove the data on alcohol, and I was surprised by that because the data around the contribution of alcohol to domestic and sexual violence is very strong.

“And there was also the data on the socioeconomic gradient in domestic and sexual violence. As we know, domestic violence is a common pathway for women into poverty, and once they are in that position, they are more vulnerable to violence and the impacts of violence are greater because they have fewer resources to ameliorate the impact.”

Salter says he refused to remove either and claims that – as a consequence – the review was effectively taken off him and “re-written” by other researchers. Ten years later, he still remembers what a representative from VicHealth said to him: “We need to imagine this future society that we want to live in. And that vision is not about alcohol. It’s not about class.”

What followed was a series of conversations with staff at Our Watch that Salter describes as “difficult”. In them, he sought to maintain some reference to alcohol in the framework, given the “overwhelming evidence”.

In 2015, Change the story was launched – described by Our Watch chair Natasha Stott Despoja as a “world first road-map” to prevent violence against women. It conceptualised the drivers of violence against women as entirely “gendered”, and for the purpose of simplicity they were publicly expressed as “gender inequality”. Everything else was a second order consideration, characterised as a “reinforcing factor”. This included alcohol consumption, childhood experiences of trauma, socioeconomic inequality and other forms of discrimination, including race.

“That was really my first indication,” Salter says, “that I was dealing with a public health approach to violence against women that wasn’t similar to the ‘normal’ public health response.”

Salter says he subsequently raised the issue with Our Watch on several occasions, but was asked to refrain from publicly criticising the framework because of the risk of endangering prevention as a whole under a sceptical Coalition government.

Our Watch did not respond directly to this allegation, instead providing a statement that you can read in full below this article. In response to the broader criticism of the framework’s approach, the statement reiterated Our Watch’s view that “gendered violence has gendered drivers and prevention needs to focus primarily on shifting those dynamics”.

In the statement, Our Watch chief executive Patty Kinnersly said: “There is no quick fix to ending violence against women. We all want change to happen faster, but effective primary prevention is not quick or simple to implement – it requires strong foundations including systems, processes, strategies, and leadership based on solid evidence to support the comprehensive actions needed to prevent violence against women.”

The Saturday Paper is not suggesting either Stott Despoja or Kinnersly were involved in the decision to suppress elements of Salter’s research.

A year after Change the story was launched, the Commonwealth launched the first wave of the Stop it at the Start campaign. Over the years, it would receive a total of $115 million in funding, alongside the $182 million in Commonwealth funding directed at Our Watch. The campaign aimed to reset young people’s attitudes by motivating their adult influencers – parents, family members, teachers, coaches, employers and other community role models – to play a role. It encouraged influencers to reflect on their own attitudes and “have conversations” about respectful relationships and gender equality with young people aged 10–17 years.

Stop it at the Start built on the Change the story framework in the sense that it shared a strong emphasis on gender inequality as the cause of violence against women and gender equality, or “respect”, as the solution. It was heavily focused on tackling social norms, attitudes and beliefs as a way of changing behaviour.

There is doubt, however, about whether either Change the story or Stop it at the Start were really successful in tackling the structural drivers of gender inequality or harmful gender norms. By 2021, Australia had tumbled from 15th place in the 2006 World Economic Forum Global Gender rankings to 50th place. The report “Attitudes Matter: The 2021 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey” showed persistent, problematic attitudes in relation to gendered violence, including the fact that 41 per cent of Australians believed domestic violence was committed equally by both men and women.

Still, in a document titled “Tracking progress in prevention”, published in 2020, Our Watch claimed, “Australia’s approach to prevention is based on sound evidence, showing encouraging signs of progress and heading in the right direction – and we need to stay the course.”

Caterina Giorgi, the chief executive of the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, concurs with many of Salter’s critiques, chiefly that the inclusion of alcohol was a problem then – and remains a problem today.

Giorgi says that while she understands concerns that overplaying the role of alcohol might give violent men an “excuse” for their behaviour, she believes there was also something else at play.

“I think, at that time, there was a conscious decision to minimise the role of alcohol in violence,” she tells The Saturday Paper . “Whenever alcohol is spoken about in this country, because it is so normalised, because there are so many active alcohol companies and lobby groups who are so close to the political process who undermine any policy reform to prevent any harm that people see – alcohol harm reduction is seen as killing off any possibility of governments acting on these things.”

Data from Giorgi’s foundation highlights that alcohol is involved in between 23 per cent and 65 per cent of all police-reported family violence incidents. When perpetrators are drinking, it also increases the severity of violence, leading to higher rates of harm and injury. Australian evidence shows greater access to alcohol increases the risk of violence – and the largely unregulated explosion in online sales and delivery has only made this worse.

“The truth is,” Giorgi says, “while there’s huge concern about talking about alcohol in relation to excusing men’s behaviour, if we don’t talk about alcohol, we are excusing the behaviours of corporations who are strongly targeting people who drink at the highest levels and cause the most harm.”

Giorgi adds that there are other serious issues with the public health and behaviour change approach of Change the story and Stop it at the Start. “There’s been this attempt to apply a public health framework in an area where public health frameworks aren’t usually used,” she says. “And in doing so, some have completely removed what would normally happen when we think of prevention.”

In no other public health campaign, Giorgi explains, do we say there is one “cause” and there are other “reinforcing factors”: “We talk about multiple causes.”

Essentially, the goal is to chip away at a problem, working with a mix of “prevention” interventions that include tackling norms and attitudes, but which also include regulation or other actions.

Giorgi says the strong focus on education, awareness raising and then behaviour change is a dated approach, based on public health and behaviour change practice that was in vogue “two, three or maybe even five decades ago”. She adds: “We now know that awareness raising is important, it’s required, but it is insufficient when it comes to changing behaviours.”

A paper published last month in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest underscores this point. Researchers evaluated primary prevention programs in relation to sexual violence over decades in several countries and found that “there is little to no relationship between changing attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge and reducing victimization or perpetration”.

The Saturday Paper understands from multiple sources that at last week’s national plan advisory group meeting there was acceptance from a number of key figures that attitude change was not an effective strategy to reduce violence.

In response to questions about the effectiveness of Stop it at the Start, the Department of Social Services said in a statement: “Ending this violence in one generation will take a whole-of-society effort. We recognise there is always more that can be done and that there are a range of views in the community on how this goal can be achieved. That is why we have established an Expert Panel to conduct a Rapid Review of Prevention Approaches – to take a broad view of prevention across all domains of the National Plan and consider a full range of views and evidence on what more can be done to end this crisis.”

Annabelle Daniel, the chief executive of Women’s Community Shelters and chair of Domestic Violence NSW, says that at the time of the launch of Change the story and Stop it at the Start there was a huge groundswell of hope from a lot of frontline services that this issue was being taken seriously at a national level.

“Initially there was significant goodwill that this was going to be moving in the right direction and align with the work that we were doing on the ground,” she says. “And I think subsequently, over the decade, that’s where the problems have really been. Because there’s a ‘what we do’ – and I don’t think anyone on the frontline has ever disputed that primary prevention was necessary – but ‘how you do it’ can be just as important if you want it to work.”

Daniel believes the fundamental problem with the creation of Our Watch was the “primary prevention” section of the response was essentially carved off and given to one organisation to run. There’s been no mandate on how it interacts with the rest of the sector and no performance metrics around partnering well and making sure the evidence is taken to action on the frontline in a meaningful, sustained and integrated way.

“And to a lot of the rest of the sector, it looks like they’re receiving significant funding in comparison to a very starved frontline,” she says. “And that is very challenging.”

In 2021, this masthead reported on leaked documents that showed the Morrison government’s interference with the work of Our Watch. The documents revealed standover, intimidatory tactics that sources close to the situation said had created a “culture of fear” that effectively silenced the peak body for prevention. In its statement, Our Watch pointed to an independent evaluation of its work, conducted by PwC in 2018, that said it was “an independent and impartial voice in violence against women and their children”.

To avoid doubt, neither Salter, Giorgi, Daniel, nor anyone else who The Saturday Paper spoke to for this story, is arguing that the gendered analysis of violence is not necessary – or not incredibly important.

What they’re saying is that a strategy that pursues gender equality – and is underpinned by a focus on changing attitudes, beliefs and social norms – effectively overlooks other factors.

Perhaps Anne Summers, who is also a member of the rapid review panel, put it best at the Elsie Conference convened earlier this year to mark the 50th anniversary of the establishment of Australia’s first domestic violence refuge, when she said, “I hope we can understand more about the monster we are confronting and I hope this will lead us to rethink our approach. While gender equality is essential, it is not enough.”

As Daniel says: “This literally has as the endpoint the lives of women and children. It is a critical conversation that we have to have. And what we can’t let get in the way is organisational ego, research ego, or organisational self-perpetuation, or more funding, or any of those things. Our eye has to be on solving the problem. And that’s where our focus needs to be. I think too many other things have gotten in the way with this.”

If you or someone you know is affected by sexual assault or family violence, call 1800-RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit  www.1800RESPECT.org.au .

Declaration of interest: Kristine Ziwica worked at Our Watch establishing the National Media Engagement project from 2014 to 2016. She has not worked for Our Watch in a formal or informal capacity since then.

Statement from Patty Kinnersly, chief executive of Our Watch:

There is no quick fix to ending violence against women. We all want change to happen faster, but effective primary prevention is not quick or simple to implement – it requires strong foundations including systems, processes, strategies, and leadership based on solid evidence to support the comprehensive actions needed to prevent violence against women. The national framework to prevent violence against women, Change the story , was developed by a group of primary prevention experts, each with deep understanding of the decades of national and international evidence in this field, who worked collaboratively to review and summarise this evidence for the purpose of developing a national framework. It was developed with over two years of consultation with community, victim survivors and all governments, and the evidence was clear that the underlying drivers of violence against women are harmful gender stereotypes, gender inequality, sexism and disrespect. Change the story has widespread support across Australia and internationally from those working in the primary prevention of violence against women, and aligns with international human rights conventions. Like all evidence, we expect it to continue to evolve and change as the work progresses, but the fundamentals remain true. Gendered violence has gendered drivers, and prevention needs to focus primarily on shifting these dynamics. This is why the strategic, focussed approach of Change the story calls for the greatest effort to be centred on the strongest drivers of violence against women, supported by efforts to address the reinforcing factors that can make the violence more frequent or severe. This approach is deliberately intended to be more efficient and effective than a fragmented approach delivered through piecemeal funding. The benefit is the outcome of ending violence against women, not only reducing the severity. If Australia is to end violence against women, we need to see action and funding across all four of the key elements articulated in the National Plan – primary prevention, early intervention, response and recovery. This is not an either/or scenario, and treating it as one will see Australia fail to end this crisis. Violence against women is not only an individual problem, it is a social problem, and it requires a society-wide solution. Changing attitudes is one part of the change we need, but not the only part. Change the story clearly articulates the regulatory and policy work required to create the structural changes needed at a community, organisational and institutional level if we are to prevent violence against women, and this is a key part of our work. Change the story also specifically references the need to address reinforcing factors like childhood experience of violence, harmful alcohol use and the impact of poverty. Our Watch actively supports efforts to reduce these harms, and in turn to reduce the frequency and severity of the violence experienced by women. Change of this complexity and at this scale takes time. Our Watch’s framework for monitoring and evaluation, Counting on Change , suggested that progress would start to show within 6 to 10 years if all the recommended prevention infrastructure and activity was put in place. Some of that key activity has only started being implemented in the past 12-18 months, such as the National Gender Strategy, state-based prevention strategies, and a positive legal duty for businesses to prevent sexual harassment. And in other areas, progress is limited, including building a national prevention workforce, which Our Watch’s frameworks highlight as a critical component. The speed of change is reliant on the speed of action. Accountability in this work is vital, both at an organisational and government level. All projects delivered by Our Watch using government funding have been evaluated, most by independent evaluators. Our Watch’s progress and impact was also independently evaluated by PwC in 2018 and the evaluation found that Our Watch had played a critical role in the development of an Australian evidence base, national coordination of primary prevention effort, and providing an independent and impartial voice in violence against women and their children. Our Watch’s funding, and funding for primary prevention more broadly, is relatively small relative to other similarly complex social issues. As a comparison, Australia’s national organisation for the prevention of mental illness has received close to five times the amount of funding over the past ten years as Our Watch has received to prevent violence against women. We cannot accept that men’s violence is inevitable, and we must dedicate resources and effort to both responding to it and preventing it. We are at the point in complex social change where staying the course is not only preferable, it is critical. Women’s lives are depending on it.

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on July 27, 2024 as "Exclusive: Health authority suppressed violence research".

For almost a decade, The Saturday Paper has published Australia’s leading writers and thinkers. We have pursued stories that are ignored elsewhere, covering them with sensitivity and depth. We have done this on refugee policy, on government integrity, on robo-debt, on aged care, on climate change, on the pandemic.

All our journalism is fiercely independent. It relies on the support of readers. By subscribing to The Saturday Paper , you are ensuring that we can continue to produce essential, issue-defining coverage, to dig out stories that take time, to doggedly hold to account politicians and the political class.

There are very few titles that have the freedom and the space to produce journalism like this. In a country with a concentration of media ownership unlike anything else in the world, it is vitally important. Your subscription helps make it possible .

Select your digital subscription

RELATED READING

Kristine Ziwica is a Melbourne-based journalist.

Get the news you need to your inbox.

July 27 – August 2, 2024 Edition No. 510

Exclusive: Health authority suppressed gendered violence research Kristine Ziwica

Labor poised to launch universal childcare plan Karen Barlow

NDIS media strategy briefing given before review finished Rick Morton

Seven questions for PwC Jason Koutsoukis

The fight ahead for a Harris presidency Santilla Chingaipe

Andrew Forrest faces reality of green hydrogen’s limits Mike Seccombe

What the gas giants knew all along Royce Kurmelovs

The anointment of Kamala Harris Jonathan Pearlman

How to win an election on progressive politics Nick Dyrenfurth

Reshuffles in the US and Australia Paul Bongiorno

Canada rejects AUKUS nuclear submarine deal John Hewson

Jon Kudelka cartoon, July 27, 2024 Jon Kudelka

A portrait of Gina Rinehart

Flights of fancy

Author Roxane Gay So Mayer

The Bear ’s season 3 Sarah Krasnostein

Unsound Adelaide 2024 Nick Buckley

sis: Pacific Art at QAGOMA Margaret Jolly

Trump in Jail Philip Neilsen

MTC's A Streetcar Named Desire Alison Croggon

The Echoes Brooke Boland

Together We Fall Apart Maria Takolander

Highway 13 Felicity Plunkett

Mussel and beluga lentil risotto Karen Martini

Iris van Herpen: Sculpting the Senses at GOMA Lucianne Tonti

A watershed win, a waterless flight for Fremantle Martin McKenzie-Murray

Cryptic Crossword No. 510 Liam Runnalls

Paris 2024 is officially the Games of the [which] Olympiad? Cindy MacDonald

More from Author

life   May 11, 2024

A seat at the domestic violence roundtable

Kristine Ziwica A crisis meeting convened by the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner shows frontline workers and advocates seizing a rare opportunity to push for meaningful change, learning from mistakes – and triumphs – of the past.

economy   March 9, 2024

The fight for pay gap transparency

Kristine Ziwica Last week’s public disclosure of gender pay gaps at 5000 Australian companies was a first, and comes almost a decade after an attempt by the Coalition government to dismantle the reporting regime.

law & crime   July 22, 2023

Exclusive: Universities axe consent program

Kristine Ziwica The unease of a minority of vice-chancellors has stopped a campaign aimed at tackling sexual violence on university campuses.

health   June 25, 2022

Labor’s urgent work to tackle domestic violence

Kristine Ziwica New Labor minister Amanda Rishworth is under pressure to fix a flawed draft plan to end gendered violence, with the existing framework to expire this week. Experts say real progress is possible but could take years and cost billions.

law & crime   May 14, 2022

New front in Coalition war on charities

Kristine Ziwica Before the election, the Morrison government’s charities commission began issuing letters that threatened charities with deregistration if they were engaged in advocacy. Many regard these ‘reviews’ as a means of silencing the sector.

View all editions

Take a stand while sitting down.

Subscribe to The Saturday Paper for less than $2.20 a week.

• newsletters

SWIPE FOR MORE

The Saturday Paper

• Editorial Guidelines
• Forgot Password
• Help Centre
• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Find a Stockist

More from Schwartz Media

• The Monthly
• Quarterly Essay
• Australian Foreign Affairs
• 7am Podcast
• The Weekend Read

The Saturday Paper is a weekly newspaper, published 50 times a year by Schwartz Media .

Subscriptions

Phone    1800 077 514

Email     [email protected]

© 2024 The Saturday Paper. All rights reserved.

Or, log in with email only

By logging in you agree to our terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Want some assistance? Contact us .