ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Previous studies of peer support for various types of violence against college students are heteronormative, being primarily concerned with the abuse of heterosexual women by heterosexual males. Using recent data from the Campus Quality of Life Survey conducted at a large residential college in the South Atlantic part of the US, the main objective of this paper is to help fill a major research gap by presenting data on two ways in which negative peer support contribute to sexual violence and stalking in a campus LGBTQ community. The results show that LGBTQ students are more likely to receive such support than heterosexual ones and that negative peer support predicts sexual assault and stalking among both types of students. Implications for further empirical and theoretical work are discussed, as well as some key policy issues.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Delivered by Ingenta to: Walter DeKeseredy
IP : On: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:56:35
Copyright The Policy Press
Journal of Gender-Based Violence • vol 1 • no 2 • 169–85 • © Centre for Gender and Violence Research,
University of Bristol • #JGBV • Print ISSN 2398-6808 • Online ISSN 2398-6816
A campus LGBTQ community’s sexual violence and
stalking experiences: the contribution of
pro-abuse peer support
Walter DeKeseredy,
West Virginia University, US
Amanda Hall-Sanchez,
Fairmont State University, US
James Nolan,
West Virginia University, US
Martin Schwartz,
George Washington University, US
Previous studies of peer support for various types of violence against college students are
heteronormative, being primarily concerned with the abuse of heterosexual women by heterosexual
males. Using recent data from the Campus Quality of Life Survey conducted at a large residential
college in the South Atlantic part of the US, the main objective of this paper is to help fill a major
research gap by presenting data on two ways in which negative peer support contribute to sexual
violence and stalking in a campus LGBTQ community. The results show that LGBTQ students are
more likely to receive such support than heterosexual ones and that negative peer support predicts
sexual assault and stalking among both types of students. Implications for further empirical and
theoretical work are discussed, as well as some key policy issues.
key words sexual assault • stalking • LGBTQ • peer support • college
key messages
LGBTQ students report higher rates of sexual assault and stalking than heterosexual students.
LGBTQ students are more likely to receive negative peer support than are their heterosexual
To cite this article: DeKeseredy, W., Hall-Sanchez, A., Nolan, J. and Schwartz, M. (2017) A campus
LGBTQ community’s sexual violence and stalking experiences: the contribution of pro-abuse
peer support, Journal of Gender-Based Violence, vol 1 no 2, 169–85, DOI: 10.1332/239868017X
bystander research
Delivered by Ingenta to: Walter DeKeseredy
IP : On: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:56:35
Copyright The Policy Press
Walter DeKeseredy et al
There is, and rightfully so, major concern about sexual assault on the college
campus. Still, the bulk of the discussions among researchers, practitioners, activists
and policy makers focus on the plight of heterosexual women (DeKeseredy et al,
2017a; Guadalupe-Diaz, 2015). What Mullins (2013, p. 1) stated four years ago still
holds true today: ‘Amid a growing debate over sexual violence on campus, one
community has mostly been absent from the conversation: lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender students. This is highly problematic because a growing number of
studies show that members of campus LGBTQ communities are at equal or greater
risk of being sexually assaulted compared with heterosexual students. For example,
Ford and Soto-Marquez’s (2016) campus survey found that the rate of sexual assault
experienced by gay men (24 per cent) is nearly equal to that (24.7 per cent) reported
by heterosexual women in their sample. They also uncovered that bisexual college
women experience sexual assault at a rate (37.8 per cent) markedly higher than the
often quoted ‘one in four’ gure.
Using data generated by the Campus Quality of Life Survey (CQLS) administered
at a large residential college in the US, the main objective of this study is to add to
the small, but rapidly growing body of empirical work on violence against student
members of campus LGBTQ communities. More specifically, we move beyond
the heteronormativity of most previous campus peer support studies to examine
the relationship between negative peer support and two types of violence against
LGBTQ students: sexual assault and stalking. Though there are various definitions
of this determinant, here, we oer a modified version of DeKeseredy’s (1988a)
conceptualisation of male peer support: attachments to peers and the resources they
provide that perpetuate and legitimate various types of violence against college
Theoretical issues
As far as we know, none of the theoretical work on intimate violence against LGBTQ
people has focused on negative peer dynamics. It is beyond the scope of this paper
to provide a detailed explanation for the absence of such work, but our rationale for
hypothesizing that peer support is a correlate of LGBTQ victimisation is as follows
and is informed by the male peer support theoretical literature. Male peer support
theory suggests that when some men seek the advice of their peers, they are given
both encouragement and advice on how to abuse women who ‘talk back’ or do not
provide sex on demand. Data accumulated over the past 30 years show that having
friends who oer such advice is one of the most powerful determinants of whether a
male engages in physical, sexual, or psychological assaults on intimate female partners
(DeKeseredy and Schwartz, 2013; 2015).
Male peer support is strongly associated with separation/divorce violence against
women (DeKeseredy et al, 2017b). For example, many members of patriarchal peer
groups view beatings, sexual assault, and other forms of victimisation as legitimate and
eective means of responding to ‘damaged’ patriarchal masculinity and rearming
a man’s right to control his female partner (Messerschmidt, 1993; Ray, 2011). Not
only do these men verbally and publicly state that sexual assault and other types of
abuse are legitimate means of patriarchal authority and domination, they also serve
Delivered by Ingenta to: Walter DeKeseredy
IP : On: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:56:35
Copyright The Policy Press
A campus LGBTQ community’s sexual violence and stalking experiences
as role models because many of them physically, sexually and psychologically harm
their own intimate partners (DeKeseredy and Schwartz, 2013).
Peer support motivates men to ‘lash out against the women…they no longer
can control’ (Bourgois, 1995, p. 214). Consider women who leave male partners
for a lesbian woman. A growing literature shows that the coming-out experiences
of lesbians sometimes entails violent assaults committed by ex-boyfriends and ex-
husbands, as well as sexual harassment and stalking. Bisexual women, too, are at risk
of experiencing these harms, despite revealing their sexual orientation at the start of
a heterosexual relationship (Meyer, 2015). In fact, the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) found that bisexual women are more likely to experience rape, physical
violence and stalking from an intimate partner compared to heterosexual women
and lesbians. Moreover, bisexual women reported that most perpetrators (89.5 per
cent) were males (Walters et al, 2013). Other studies of violence against bisexual
women have uncovered even higher rates of only male perpetration (Messinger,
2017; Walters and Lippy, 2016).
Men who associate with patriarchal male peers and with those who abuse women
are also patriarchal and typically have hostile attitudes toward bisexuality. They are,
as Meyer (2015, p. 128) puts it, ‘troubled by its rejection of dichotomous sexual
orientation.’ Hence, if a patriarchal man’s peers see him as a failure with women
because his lesbian partner wants to leave him or if his partner is bisexual, he is likely
to be ridiculed because he ‘can’t control his woman’ (DeKeseredy et al, 2004). Like
many college men who rape women, he is likely to sexually assault her to regain status
among his peers. The sexual assaults committed against lesbian or bisexual women
during or after the termination of a relationship may have much more to do with
male perpetrators’ need to sustain their status among their peers than either a need
to satisfy their sexual desires or a longing to regain a loving relationship (DeKeseredy
and Schwartz, 2013; Godenzi et al, 2001).
Of course, there is no way of directly testing this speculative theory using the
CQLS. Even so, findings revealing a relationship between negative peer support,
sexual violence, and stalking in a campus LGBTQ community could lead to the
crafting of another study specifically designed to do so. We do know, however, that
there is peer support for anti-LGBT discrimination and violence (Levin and Nolan,
2017; Meyer, 2015). Thus, an unknown number of victims included in our sample
may have belonged to heterosexual peer groups due to a fear of having their gender
or sexual identities revealed, but were victimised if they ‘came out’ or if their true
identities were uncovered.
In sum, this study responds to DeKeseredy and Schwartz’s (2013) call for new
empirical work on peer support for violence. Certainly, the data presented in a
subsequent section of this paper tell us much, but there are still many unanswered
questions to consider and new avenues to explore. Chief among them is the
development of a self-report survey that focuses on the motivations of oenders.
Sample and data collection
Conducted in spring 2016, the CQLS is a web survey of 30,470 students who are 18
years of age or older at a large residential college in a South Atlantic part of the US.
Delivered by Ingenta to: Walter DeKeseredy
IP : On: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:56:35
Copyright The Policy Press
Walter DeKeseredy et al
A total of 5,718 participants completed the questionnaire, which is close to 20 per
cent of the entire student population, and the response rate is comparable to that of
the larger Association of American Universities (AAU) Campus Climate Survey on
Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct (Cantor et al, 2015). As noted in Table 1, the
CQLS self-selected sample is, for the most part, representative of the entire campus
population. Nevertheless, there are sex discrepancies in Table 1. Survey response and
non-response studies show that trends in who answers surveys do, in fact, exist, with
women typically being more likely to participate than men (DeKeseredy et al, 2017b;
Smith, 2008). Furthermore, the relevance of the survey also inuences response rates
(Groves et al, 2000). Therefore, since women are among the highest risk of groups
to experience the harms addressed in this study, it is not surprising that the CQLS
elicited a higher percentage of females than that of the college’s general population, as
well as a lower percentage of men than that of the broader male student community.
Table 2 presents data on the numbers and percentages of students’ sexual orientations
and gender identities. Ninety-two per cent (n = 4,966) of the sample reported that
they are heterosexual/straight and 8 per cent (n = 427) reported belonging to the other
groups listed in Table 2. Given the relatively small number of people who belong to
each LGBTQ group, for purposes of data analysis, it was necessary to combine all of
Table 1: Demographic characteristics of the main campus population and the CQLS
Status Population
N = 30,470
N = 5,718
Undergraduate 77.3 78.9
Professional 4.6 5.1
Graduate 18.2 15.9
Female 48.6 57.2
Male 51.4 37.1
Other Not recorded 1.1
Black/African American 6.7 4.4
White 86.5 83.8
Asian 6.4 6.0
Hawaiian /Pacific Islander 0.5 0.2
Native American 1.4 0.4
Hispanic* 3.8 3.1
Other (including mixed race) Not recorded 2.0
Average age 23.3 22.1
Note: *The ethnic category ‘Hispanic’ was considered separate from race in the population column and so
the total exceeds 100%.
Delivered by Ingenta to: Walter DeKeseredy
IP : On: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:56:35
Copyright The Policy Press
A campus LGBTQ community’s sexual violence and stalking experiences
them into one category, which we label the LGBTQ community. Thus, an obvious
limitation of this study is that we are unable to determine whether certain groups
of LGBTQ people have higher or lower rates of sexual violence and stalking. Still,
we can identify male and female members of the LGBTQ community and women
were 14 per cent more likely to report being LGBTQ than males in the sample.
The sample was recruited using a campus-wide publicity strategy that involved:
electronic advertisements on the college’s various news sites;
posters about the study were placed throughout the campus;
many faculty members encouraged students to participate in the study;
aliates of various campus resource centres publicly encouraged students to
complete the survey;
interns aliated with one of the college’s social scientic research centre
announced the survey in all their classes; and
the college’s president sent out a campus-wide electronic message to all students
requesting them to participate in the survey.
Incentives, too, were used to recruit participants. Every type of publicity involved
telling students about the opportunity to be randomly selected to receive one of
20 $50.00 VISA gift cards. This was also stated in the survey itself. The literature on
internet surveys shows that lotteries are widely used in web surveys and are often
more eective than other types of incentives (Couper and Bosnjak, 2010).
Email invitations to complete the survey were sent to 30,470 students, with the
first of four weekly invitations sent out on 28 March 2016. Each invitation included
a link to the survey, which was administered using Qualtrics software. After clicking
the link to the survey in the email invitation and then clicking a button to participate,
respondents were taken to a screen containing a consent form. Students who indicated
that they did not want to participate were removed from the email reminder list.
Participants were asked to confirm that they were at least 18 years old and a current
student. They were additionally told that any information they provide will be kept
Table 2: CQLS respondents’ sexual orientations and gender identities*
Sexual orientations/gender identities N%
Gay 92 2.00
Lesbian 55 1.00
Bisexual 194 4.00
Asexual 38 1.00
Heterosexual/Straight 4,966 92.10
Transwoman 7 0.12
Transman 3 0.10
Genderqueer/gender-non-conforming 23 0.40
A sexual orientation not listed here 48 1.00
A gender not listed here 27 0.50
Note: *The categories presented in this table come from two questions, one about gender and one about
sexual orientation. Therefore, the percentages included in the table will add to more than 100%.
Delivered by Ingenta to: Walter DeKeseredy
IP : On: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:56:35
Copyright The Policy Press
Walter DeKeseredy et al
completely anonymous. What is more, it was made explicit that student anonymity
is a priority and that any information they share cannot be identified. Moreover,
they were informed that the research team cannot access their IP address or link the
survey to their names, student IDs or email addresses. Furthermore, under the research
protocol, students were told that participation in this study is strictly voluntary and
that they can skip any question and stop at any time.
Regardless of what they chose, all participants were provided with information
on free professional support from counselling services. Every page of the survey that
contained sensitive questions had a link to on-campus resources, including one at the
close of the instrument. Located below the list of resources at the end of the survey
was the option for students to enter their email addresses in a draw for a $50.00 VISA
gift card. To further preserve students’ anonymity, spreadsheets containing participants’
responses are securely stored by Qualtrics and are only accessed by the research team.
After the first email invitation, three reminders were sent out (one a week) for
a total of four weeks of data collection. Couper and Bosnjak (2010, p. 539) assert
that ‘much of the nonresponse occurs at the early stages before we have a chance
to convince them of the importance of the study.’ The opposite occurred with the
CQLS. In fact, close to 2,500 students completed the survey within five days of the
first email invitation. Again, supplementing the reminders were those provided by
colleagues aliated with other faculty departments and oces at the college.
Sexual assault
The ve items in Table 3 are modied versions of a few included in Koss et al’s
(2007) Revised Sexual Experiences Survey (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80). They were
introduced with the preamble below and the response categories are ‘yes’ and ‘no.
Note that above the third item in Table 3 was the statement: ‘If you are a male, go to
the next item’, followed by
The following questions concern unwanted sexual experiences that you
may have had since you enrolled at XXX. We know that these are personal
questions, so we don’t want your name or other identifying information. Your
answers are completely condential. We hope this helps you feel comfortable
answering each question honestly.
Following the above question, students were asked a question that includes six slightly
modied versions of items included in the University of Kentucky’s Campus Attitudes
Toward Safety (CATS) Survey (Center for Research on Violence Against Women,
2014). The responses to this question are provided in Table 4: ‘Who was the person
with whom you experienced unwanted sex? Select all that apply.
Stalking is dened here as ‘the willful, repeated, and malicious following, harassing, or
threatening of another person’ (Melton, 2007, p. 4). It was operationalised using the
eight items in Table 5 that are derived from the CDC’s National Intimate Partner and
Delivered by Ingenta to: Walter DeKeseredy
IP : On: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:56:35
Copyright The Policy Press
A campus LGBTQ community’s sexual violence and stalking experiences
Table 3: LGBTQ and heterosexual sexual assault victimization
LGBTQ respondents Heterosexual respondents
Yes No Ye s No
Type of sexual assault N % N % N % N %
Someone fondled, kissed, or rubbed up
against the private areas of my body or
removed my clothes without my consent –
but did not attempt sexual penetration.
132 33.3 264 66.7 917 20.5 3,562 79.5
Someone had oral sex with me or made
me have oral sex with them without my
46 11.6 350 88.4 230 5.0 4,249 95.0
Someone put their penis, fingers, or other
objects into my vagina without my consent.
41 15.4 226 84.6 264 9.7 2,462 90.3
Someone put their penis, fingers, or other
objects into my butt without my consent.
38 9.6 357 90.4 162 3.6 4,309 96.4
Even though it didn’t happen, someone
tried to have oral, anal, or vaginal sex with
me without my consent.
82 20.9 311 79.1 479 10.7 3,998 89.3
Table 4: Sexual assault perpetrators
Relationship LGBTQ
N % N %
Student you were dating or spouse/partner 13 8.2 87 8.1
Student who was ‘friend with benefits’ or I was ‘hooking up’ with 33 20.9 193 18.0%
Student 72 45.6 474 44.2
College employee 4 2.5 23 2.1
Person with no connection to college 48 30.4 229 21.3
Other 9 5.7 84 7.8
Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) (Black et al, 2011) (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77). They
were introduced with this question: ‘How many times have one or more people done
the following things to you since you enrolled at XXX?’ Then, survey participants were
asked about their relationship to a perpetrator. The response categories are presented
in Table 6 and the relationship question was introduced as follows:
Think about the situations that have happened to you that involved the
experiences you marked on the last screen. Now think about the one situation
that had the greatest eect on you and answer the following questions.
Peers’ pro-abuse informational support
This variable refers to peers’ guidance and advice that inuences people to sexually,
physically and psychologically abuse their dating partners (DeKeseredy and Schwartz,
1998). To measure it, we created an index by adding male and female respondents’
scores on seven slightly modied items developed by DeKeseredy (1988b) and
presented in Table 7 (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80). They were introduced as follows
using a preamble that includes a statement included in the Administrator-Researcher
Delivered by Ingenta to: Walter DeKeseredy
IP : On: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:56:35
Copyright The Policy Press
Walter DeKeseredy et al
Table 5: Stalking victimisation
LGBTQ respondents Heterosexual respondents
Yes No Ye s No
N % N % N % N %
Watched or followed you from a distance, or
spied on you with a listening device, camera,
or GPS?
68 16.5 344 83.5 478 10.2 4,224 89.8
Approached you or showed up in places,
such as your home, workplace, or college
when you didn’t want them there?
101 24.6 310 75.4 648 13.8 4,051 86.2
Left strange or potentially threatening items
for you to find?
25 6.1 387 93.9 134 2.9 4,560 97.1
Sneaked into your home or car and did
things to scare you by letting you know they
had been there?
16 3.9 396 96.1 124 2.6 4,571 97.4
Sent you unwanted electronic messages
such as texts, voice messages, emails, or
through social media apps?
144 35.0 268 65.0 963 20.5 3,738 79.5
Left you cards, letters, flowers, or presents
when they knew you didn’t want them to?
41 10.0 371 90.0 223 4.7 4,474 95.3
Made rude or mean comments to you
128 31.1 283 68.9 827 17.6 3,869 82.4
Spread rumours about you online, whether
they were true or not?
88 21.5 322 78.5 594 12.7 4,097 87.3
Table 6: Stalking perpetrators
Relationship LGBTQ Heterosexual
Stranger 78 35.0 583 35.2
Acquaintance 64 28.7 425 25.7
Friend 30 13.5 291 17.6
Romantic partner 13 5.8 118 7.1
Former romantic partner 31 13.9 195 11.8
Relative/Family member 4 1.8 7 0.4
Faculty/Staff 3 1.3 36 2.2
Student 136 61.0 1,004 60.6
Delivered by Ingenta to: Walter DeKeseredy
IP : On: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:56:35
Copyright The Policy Press
A campus LGBTQ community’s sexual violence and stalking experiences
Campus Climate Collaborative’s (ARC3) (2015) Survey’s introduction to peer norms
measures, and the participants were asked to answer either ‘yes’ or ‘no’:
The next questions are about the information your current friends may have
given you concerning how to deal with problems in intimate or romantic
relationships. When the word ‘date’ is used, please think of anyone with whom
you have or have had a romantic or sexual relationship – short or long term.
Please click the bubble which best represents your answer.
To the best of your knowledge, did any of your friends tell you that…
Table 7: Differences in pro-abuse informational support and attachments to abusive peers
LGBTQ Respondents Heterosexual Respondents
Pro-abuse informational support N % N % N % N %
You should respond to your date’s
challenges to your authority by using
physical force such as hitting or
19 4.7 383 95.3 100 2.2 4,495 97.8
It is alright for someone to hit a date
in certain situations
35 8.8 365 91.3 237 5.2 4,357 94.8
Your dates should have sex with you
whenever you want
26 6.5 375 93.5 147 3.2 4,446 96.8
When you spend money on a date,
the person should have sex with you
in return
32 8.0 370 92.0 213 4.6 4,378 95.4
You should respond to your date’s
challenges to your authority by
insulting them or putting them down
18 4.5 383 95.5 107 2.3 4,481 97.7
You should respond to your date’s
sexual rejections by using physical
force to have sex
5 1.2 396 98.8 46 1.0 4,539 99.0
It is alright to physically force a person
to have sex under certain conditions
10 2.5 393 97.5 59 1.3 4,528 98.7
Attachments to abusive peers
Your friends have made physically
forceful attempts at sexual activity
with dates which were disagreeable
and offensive enough that the dates
responded in an offended manner (e.g.,
crying, fighting, screaming or pleading)
86 22.5 296 77.5 708 15.7 3,796 84.3
Your friends have used physical force
such as hitting or beating to resolve
conflicts with their dates
91 23.5 296 76.5 775 17.0 3,782 83.0
Your friends insult their dates, swear at
them, or withhold affection
170 43.5 221 56.5 1,810 39.9 2,725 60.1
Delivered by Ingenta to: Walter DeKeseredy
IP : On: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:56:35
Copyright The Policy Press
Walter DeKeseredy et al
Attachments to abusive peers
To measure this variable, another index was created. Developed by DeKeseredy
and Schwartz (1998), this index included the three items also included in Table 7
(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81). The responses were none, 1 or 2, 3 to 5, 6 to 10, more
than 10, and don’t know. The items were introduced with this preamble: ‘To the best
of your knowledge, how many of your friends…’
Data analysis
The rst step was to present descriptive statistics on the demographics of the sample,
the prevalence of both sexual assault and stalking, and on perpetrators of these harms.
To measure the eects of pro-abuse informational support and attachment to abusive
peers on the dependent variables (sexual assault and stalking), binomial logistic
regression analysis was used. Separate analyses were conducted for both heterosexual
and LGBTQ students.
CQLS ndings show that sexual assault is a major problem at this college, as it is at
many other post-secondary institutions across the United States. Still, some people
are at higher risk than others. For example, Table 3 shows that 40 per cent (n = 158)
of the LGBTQ respondents experienced one or more of ve types of sexual assault
compared to 24 per cent (n = 1,073) of the heterosexual participants. What is more, the
LGBTQ sexual assault estimate is higher than the one (nearly 25 per cent) uncovered
from transgender, gender-queer, gender non-conforming or gender-questioning
(TGQN) undergraduates who completed the Association of American Universities
(AAU) Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct (Cantor et
al, 2015). This is likely because the AAU study used dierent measures and collected
data from 27 dierent campuses.
Most commonly, LGBTQ (33.3 per cent, n = 132) and heterosexual sexual assault
victims (21 per cent, n = 917) reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact (for
example, fondled, kissed, etc.), but 21 per cent (n =82) of LGBTQ and 11 per cent
(n = 479) of the 4,477 heterosexual respondents experienced someone trying to
have oral, anal, or vaginal sex with them against their consent. Moreover, LGBTQ
students (10 per cent, n = 38) were more than twice as likely as heterosexuals (4
per cent, n = 162) to report that someone put their penis, finger, or other objects
into their anus without their consent. Additionally, a higher percentage of LGBTQ
students (15.4 per cent, n = 41) reported unwanted vaginal penetration than did female
heterosexual respondents (10 per cent, n = 264) who completed this question (n =
2,726). Actually, since a few gay men answered this question, presumably denying
vaginal penetration, the true victimisation percentage is undoubtedly higher than
15.4 per cent. Notably, too, LGBTQ participants (12 per cent, n = 46) were twice
as likely as heterosexual students (5 per cent, n = 230) to reveal being victimised by
someone who made them have oral sex without their consent. In sum, LGBTQ
respondents reported significantly higher rates of victimisation for all the categories
listed in Table 3. What is more, the rates of attempted and completed rape reported
Delivered by Ingenta to: Walter DeKeseredy
IP : On: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:56:35
Copyright The Policy Press
A campus LGBTQ community’s sexual violence and stalking experiences
by LGBTQ students are higher than many other estimates of such behaviours among
heterosexual college students (Richards, 2016; Fedina et al, 2016).
Table 4 shows that, except for the category ‘person with no connection to the
college’, LGBTQ and heterosexual students reported roughly equal rates of being
attacked by the rest of the perpetrators. Close to 50 per cent of students in both
groups were assaulted by students, which is expected since the research site is a large
residential college.
LGBTQ students reported a rate of stalking victimisation (54.9, n = 225) that is
close to 20 per cent higher than that of heterosexual students (36 per cent, n = 1,681).
LGBTQ respondents also report higher rates of every type of stalking listed in Table
5. Electronic means of stalking are now used more frequently than non-electronic
means (DeKeseredy, Dragiewicz and Schwartz, 2017; Navarro, 2016) and this is
reflected in Table 5. Even so, a sizeable portion of LGBTQ (24.6 per cent, n = 101)
and heterosexual students (13.8 per cent, n = 648) experienced someone approaching
them or showing up in places, such as their homes, workplaces, or colleges when
they did not want them there. Moreover, data presented in Table 6 reveals no major
percentage dierences in the types of perpetrators identified by the respondents. Most
respondents in both student groups, though, reported being victimised by students.
The data presented in Tables 7, 8, and 9 help fill a major gap in the literature on
peer support and campus violence studies. For example, for every negative support
item listed in Table 7, LGBTQ respondents report higher rates than heterosexual
students. In total, 16.5 per cent (n = 66) of LGBTQ students stated receiving pro-
abuse informational support compared to 10.9 per cent (n = 497) of heterosexual
students. Note, too, that a higher rate of LGBTQ students revealed having attachments
to abusive peers (50.6 per cent vs 45.4 per cent). Additionally, to the best of our
knowledge, the regression data presented in Tables 8 and 9 are the first to show that
negative peer support predicts both LGBTQ and heterosexual students sexual assault
and stalking experiences.
Table 8: Relationship between pro-abuse informational support, attachments to abusive
peers and sexual assault
B S.E. Wald Df Sig. Exp (B)
LGBTQ victims
Pro-abuse informational
1.335 0.286 21.719 1 0.000 3.800
Constant -0.642 0.118 0.118 29.6911 0.000 0.526
Attachments to abusive
1.303 0.225 33.530 1 0.000 3.679
Constant -1.099 0.170 41.640 1 0.000 0.333
Heterosexual victims
Pro-abuse informational
1.235 0.101 150.903 1 0.000 3.437
Constant -1.316 0.039 1,110.973 1 0.000 0.268
Attachments to abusive
1.266 0.77 273.165 1 0.000 3.548
Constant -1.828 0.060 926.819 1 0.000 0.161
Delivered by Ingenta to: Walter DeKeseredy
IP : On: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:56:35
Copyright The Policy Press
Walter DeKeseredy et al
Table 8 shows that LGBTQ respondents who received pro-abuse informational
support were 3.8 times more likely to report having been sexual assaulted. Similarly,
LGBTQ respondents with attachments to abusive peers were 3.7 times more likely
to report being sexually assaulted. A similar nding was observed for heterosexual
respondents who were 3.4 times more likely to have reported a sexual assault when
they reported pro-abuse informational support and 3.5 times more likely when they
reported attachment to abusive peers. Table 9 presents a similar relationship when
the dependent variable is stalking instead of sexual assault. Pro-abuse informational
support and attachment to abusive peers more than doubles the risk that LGBTQ
and heterosexual respondents will become victims of stalking.
What is even more salient is that there are no major statistical dierences between
the two groups of respondents in both tables. Thus, it appears that what could be
referred to as a ‘non-LGBTQ-specific predictor’ (Messinger, 2017) helps explain two
major types of assaults on LGBTQ students, including sexual assaults committed by
current or former intimate partners, ‘hook up’ partners, and ‘friends with benefits.’
However, the association between negative peer support and the harms examined
here should not be, at this point in time, interpreted as a causal relationship because
it is unknown whether victimisation or peer support came first.
The results support previous studies showing that members of the LGBTQ campus
community are at higher risk of experiencing sexual assault than are heterosexuals
(see, for example, Ford and Soto-Marquez, 2016). However, a key limitation of the
CQLS and many other surveys of LGBTQ people is the grouping of all members
of the LGBTQ campus community into ‘a larger subpopulation of sexual minorities’
for reasons described in the methods section of this paper (Hoxmeier, 2016, p. 2).
As well, it is impossible to identify the factors that motivated oenders to sexually
assault survey participants. The same can be said about factors that inuenced people
to stalk respondents. Hence, self-report surveys of potential oenders are necessary
in future research.
Table 9: Relationship between pro-abuse informational support, attachments to abusive
peers and sexual assault
B S.E. Wald Df Sig. Exp (B)
LGBTQ victims
Pro-abuse informational support 1.187 0.314 14.313 1 0.000 3.278
Constant 0.037 0.110 0.110 1 0.740 1.037
Attachments to abusive peers .880 0.210 17.623 1 0.000 2.411
Constant -0.263 0.146 3.253 1 0.071 0.769
Heterosexual victims
Pro-abuse informational support 1.076 0.098 119.819 1 0.000 2.934
Constant -0.705 0.034 437.777 1 0.000 0.494
Attachments to abusive peers 1.293 0.066 384.130 1 0.000 3.643
Constant -1.214 0.049 625.993 1 0.000 0.297
Delivered by Ingenta to: Walter DeKeseredy
IP : On: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:56:35
Copyright The Policy Press
A campus LGBTQ community’s sexual violence and stalking experiences
Studies of stalking on college campuses are in short supply. The one most frequently
cited is the AAU survey and its overall stalking rate (4.2 per cent) is markedly
lower than those for both the LGBTQ and heterosexual students in our sample.
Further, similar to what we uncovered from LGBTQ students, TGQN AAU survey
participants reported the highest rates (12.1 per cent undergraduates; 8.4 per cent
graduate/professional students), but these figures are also significantly lower than the
CQLS rates. The much lower AAU figures are probably a function of methodological
dierences, such as only using three items to measure stalking.
Nearly 20 years ago, Gwartney-Gibbs and Stockard (1989, p. 185) claimed ‘Sexual
aggression and victimisation may be a part of peer group culture. That is, the friendship
networks from which individuals draw their…partners may allow, or even encourage,
male sexual aggression and female victimisation in dierent degrees. These scholars’
conclusion is based on their surveys of heterosexual students, but CQLS data show
that LGBTQ students’ peers may play a key role in their sexual victimisation and
the same can be said about their stalking experiences. Indeed, this study shows that
it is time to move peer support research beyond the realm of studying only the
relationship between negative peer group dynamics and violence against heterosexual
women. Another important step to take is to develop and test theories of negative
peer support and violence against LGBTQ students, such as one informed by the
theoretical issues covered previously in this article.
How many LGBTQ CQLS respondents were in first same sex relationships?
Unfortunately, the CQLS cannot answer this question, but future quantitative and
qualitative college studies need to because studies of non-college populations in other
countries (for example, United Kingdom and Canada) show that such relationships
are high risk for intimate violence (Donovan and Hester, 2008; 2014; Ristock, 2002).
As noted by Donovan et al (2006, p. 13), first same sex relationships have a certain
set of conditions in which intimate violence may occur. These are:
survivors’ investment in wanting a same sex relationship as conrmation of their
identity and sense of self;
their lack of condence in what behaviours are acceptable in intimate same sex
relationships; and
their possible lack of embeddedness in LGBT friendship/community networks
in which to voice their concerns, see other relationship role models and seek
support and help in addressing their abusive experiences.
Some more limitations warrant attention here. First, since the two peer support
measures are gender-neutral, the CQLS cannot discern how many male and female
friends of the survey participants provided pro-abuse informational support and
engaged in sexual assault and stalking. Additionally, there is no way of knowing the
gender-identities and sexual orientations of the CQLS respondents’ peers. Moreover,
it is unclear how many received negative peer support from heterosexual or LGBTQ
peers. Future research needs to address this concern to accurately determine if LGBTQ
pro-abuse subcultures are as plentiful as all-male heterosexual ones.
Obviously, much more research on violence against LGBTQ college students is
necessary, but the creation of eective policies is equally important. First, campus
prevention and awareness programmes that eectively meet the needs of sexual
minorities who experience rape, stalking and other types of violence are sorely
Delivered by Ingenta to: Walter DeKeseredy
IP : On: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:56:35
Copyright The Policy Press
Walter DeKeseredy et al
needed (Ford and Soto-Marquez, 2016). It is essential to avoid the pitfalls of using
only heteronormative approaches because violence against members of the LGBTQ
community must be addressed in the contexts in which LGBTQ lives are situated.
There is a growing literature showing that both victims and perpetrators of a broad
range of violent behaviours are characterised by childhood abuse, intimate partner
violence, traumatic coming out experiences, isolation, mental health problems,
internalised homophobia, substance abuse and a host of other problems (Ball, 2013;
Meyer, 2015).
The US Department of Education’s command to have college employees reveal the
names of sexual assault survivors to campus administrators, such as those who work
in Title IX oces, is worrisome. Title IX is part of the US Education Amendments
Act of 1972 and prohibits discrimination, denial and exclusion based on gender
in all schools and colleges. It was also created to protect college students who had
sexual assault and sexual harassment experiences (Wood et al, 2017). In addition
to confronting the trauma of revealing their victimisation to Title IX ocials or
to other campus authorities, many LGBTQ survivors have a well-founded fear of
their communities being stigmatised and believe that reporting their assaults could
contribute to further discrimination against them. Regardless of the ongoing struggle
for equality, the dominant heterosexual culture is still largely homophobic and
transphobic, and it views LGBTQ people as deviant and unhealthy (Guadalupe-Diaz,
2015). This is not to say that all or most campus Title IX oces and campus resource
providers are insensitive or prejudiced. Even so, LGBTQ survivors of sexual violence
require services that recognise the above issues identified by Ball (2013) or else they
will continue to suer in silence. As well, many heterosexual/straight survivors will not
reveal their experiences for fear of facing a humiliating investigation (Sokolow, 2013).
On top of eectively and sensitively meeting survivors’ needs, it is essential to
address pro-abuse attitudes and behaviours that influence peers to perpetuate and
legitimate the harms examined in this study. One promising, progressive and widely
used initiative designed to meet this goal on US campuses is the Green Dot Violence
Prevention Program. The programme helps participants identify contexts that could
lead to gender-based violence, teaches them to engage in safe means of bystander
intervention and to do other things, such as organising events to raise money to
support violence prevention (University of Kentucky Violence Intervention and
Prevention Center, 2012). Though there is evidence that the programme is eective
among heterosexual students (Coker et al, 2011), as McMahon (2017, p. 239) observes,
‘Developing specific bystander intervention strategies to align with the norms of
various subgroups on campus is an important next step.
The authors would like to thank William F. Flack Jr., Adam Pritchard, Marianne Hester
and the two anonymous reviewers for their input.
ARC3 (Administrator-Researcher Campus Climate Collaborative) (2015) ARC3
Survey of Campus Climate Regarding Sexual Misconduct. Atlanta, GA: ARC3, Georgia
State University
Delivered by Ingenta to: Walter DeKeseredy
IP : On: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:56:35
Copyright The Policy Press
A campus LGBTQ community’s sexual violence and stalking experiences
Ball, M. (2013) Heteronormativity, homonormativity and violence. In: Carrington, K.,
Ball, M., O’Brien, E. and Tauri, J. (eds) Crime, Justice and Social Democracy: International
Perspectives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 186–199
Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T.,
Chen, J. and Stevens, M.R. (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence
Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Bourgois, P. (1995) In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. New York: Cambridge
University Press
Cantor, D., Fisher, B., Chibnall, S. et al (2015) Report on the AAU Campus Climate
Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct. Rockville, MD: Westat
Center for Research on Violence Against Women (2014) Campus Attitudes Toward Safety
(CATS) Survey. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky’s Center for Research on
Violence Against Women
Coker, A.L., Cook-Craig, P.G., Williams, C.M. et al (2011) Evaluation of green dot:
An active bystander intervention to reduce sexual violence on campus. Violence
Against Women, vol 17, pp 777–796
Couper, M.P. and Bosnjak, M. (2010) Internet Surveys. In: Marsden, P.V. and Wright,
J.D. (eds) Handbook of Survey Research (2nd edn). Bingley: Emerald, pp 527–550
DeKeseredy, W.S. (1988a) Woman abuse in dating relationships: The relevance of social
support theory. Journal of Family Violence, vol 3, pp 1–13
DeKeseredy, W.S. (1988b) Woman Abuse in Dating Relationships: The Role of Male Peer
Support. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press
DeKeseredy, W.S. and Schwartz, M.D. (1998) Woman Abuse on Campus: Results from
the Canadian National Survey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
DeKeseredy, W.S. and Schwartz, M.D. (2013) Male Peer Support and Violence Against
Women: The History and Verication of a Theory. Boston, MA: Northeastern University
DeKeseredy, W.S. and Schwartz, M.D. (2015) Male peer support theory. In: Cullen,
F.T., Wilcox, P., Lux, J.L. and Lero Johnson, C. (eds) Sisters in Crime Revisited: Bringing
Gender into Criminology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp 302–322
DeKeseredy, W.S., Hall-Sanchez, A. and Nolan, J. (2017a) Suering in silence: Sexual
assaults on a campus LGBTQ community, Presented at the annual meetings of the
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Kansas City, March.
DeKeseredy, W.S., Hall-Sanchez, A. and Nolan, J. (2017b) College campus sexual
assault: The contribution of peers’ proabuse informational support and attachments
to abusive peers, Violence Against Women, DOI: 10.1177/1077801217724920
DeKeseredy, W.S., Dragiewicz, M. and Schwartz, M.D. (2017) Abusive Endings:
Separation and Divorce Violence Against Women, Oakland, CA: University of California
DeKeseredy, W.S., Rogness, M. and Schwartz, M.D. (2004) Separation/divorce sexual
assault: The current state of social scientic knowledge. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
vol 9, pp 675–691
Donovan, C. and Hester, M. (2008) ‘Because she was my girlfriend, I didn’t know any
dierent’: Making the case for mainstreaming same-sex sex/relationship education.
Sex Education, vol 8, pp 277–287
Donovan, C. and Hester M. (2014) Domestic Violence and Sexuality: What’s Love Got to
do With it? Bristol: Policy Press
Delivered by Ingenta to: Walter DeKeseredy
IP : On: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:56:35
Copyright The Policy Press
Walter DeKeseredy et al
Donovan, C., Hester, M., Holmes, J. and McCarry, M. (2006) Comparing Domestic
Abuse in Same Sex and Heterosexual Relationships. Swindon: Economic and Social
Research Council
Edwards, K.M., Probst, D.R., Tansill, E.C., Dixon, K.J., Bennett, S. and Gidycz, C.A.
(2014) In their own words: A content-analytic study of college women’s resistance
to sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, doi: 10.1177/0886260513520470
Fedina, L., Holmes, J.L. and Backes, B. (2016) Campus sexual assault: A systematic
review of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, doi:
Ford, J. and Soco-Marquez, J.G. (2016) Sexual assault victimization among straight,
gay/lesbian, and bisexual college students. Violence and Gender, vol 3, pp 107–115
Godenzi, A., Schwartz, M.D. and DeKeseredy, W.S. (2001) Toward a gendered social
bond/male peer support theory of university woman abuse. Critical Criminology,
vol 10, pp 1–16
Groves, R.M., Singer, E. and Corning, A. (2000) Leverage-saliency theory of survey
participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, vol 64, pp 299–308
Guadalupe-Diaz, X. (2015) Same-sex victimization and the LGBTQ community. In:
Richards, T.N. and Marcum, C.D. (eds) Sexual Victimization: Then and Now Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, pp 173–192
Gwartney-Gibbs, P. and Stockard, J. (1989) Courtship aggression and mixed-sex peer
groups, in M.A. Pirog-Good and J.E. Stets (eds) Violence in Dating Relationships:
Emerging Social Issues, New York: Praeger, pp 185-204.
Hart, B. (2009) Future Directions for BIPs: Examining the Power of Male Peer Support
and Building Alternative Communities. Minneapolis, MN: The Battered Women’s
Justice Project
Hoxmeier, J.C. (2016) Sexual assault and relationship abuse victimization of transgender
undergraduate students in a national sample. Violence and Gender, vol 3, pp 1–8
Koss, M.P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R. et al (2007) Revising the SES: A collaborative
process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, vol 31, pp 357–370
Levin, J. and Nolan, J. (2017) The Violence of Hate (4th edn). Lanham, MD: Roman
and Littleeld
McMahon, S. (2017) Active bystander intervention. In: Kaukinen, C., Hughes Miller,
M. and Powers, R.A. (eds) Addressing Violence Against Women on College Campuses.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, pp 230–242
Melton, H. (2007) Predicting the occurrence of stalking in relationships characterized
by domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol 22, pp 13–25
Messerschmidt, J.W. (1993) Masculinities and Crime: Critique and Reconceptualization.
Lanham, MD: Roman and Littleeld
Messinger, A.M. (2017) LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence: Lessons for Policy, Practice,
and Research. Oakland, CA: University of California Press
Meyer, D. (2015) Violence Against Queer People: Race, Class, Gender, and the Persistence
of Anti-LGBT Discrimination. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press
Mullins, D. (2013) In epidemic of campus sex crimes, LGBT cases often neglected.
Aljazeera America.
Delivered by Ingenta to: Walter DeKeseredy
IP : On: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:56:35
Copyright The Policy Press
A campus LGBTQ community’s sexual violence and stalking experiences
Navarro, J.N. (2016) Cyberabuse and cyberstalking. In: Navarro, J.N., Clevenger, S.
and Marcum, C.D. (eds) The Intersection Between Intimate Partner Abuse, Technology,
and Cybercrime. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, pp 125–139
Ray, L. (2011) Violence and Society. London: Sage
Richards, T.N. (2016) An updated review of institutions of higher education’s
responses to sexual assault: Results from a nationally representative sample. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, doi: 10.1177/0886260516658757
Ristock, J.K. (2002) No More Secrets: Violence in Lesbian Relationships. London:
Smith, W.G. (2008) Does gender inuence online survey participation?: A record-
linkage analysis of university faculty online survey response behavior. San Jose, CA:
San Jose University. http://
Sokolow, B.A. (2013) Mandatory reporting for Title IX: Keep it simple. The Chronicle
of Higher Education.
University of Kentucky Violence Intervention and Prevention Center (2012) Green
Dots for Men.
Walters, M.L. and Lippy, C. (2016) Intimate partner violence in LGBT communities.
In: Cuevas, C.A. and Rennison, C.M. (eds) The Wiley Handbook on the Psychology
of Violence. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, pp 695–714
Walters, M.L., Chan, J. and Breiding, M.J. (2013) The National Intimate Partner and
Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation.
Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention
Wood, L. Sulley, S., Kammer-Kerwick, M. et al (2017) Climate surveys: An inventory
of understanding sexual assault and other crimes of interpersonal violence at
institutions of higher learning. Violence Against Women, vol 23, pp 1249–1267
... This article aims to contribute to discussions of data collection and analysis in this area through reporting on findings and methodological challenges from a survey carried out at one English HEI in 2020. In particular, while other surveys in the UK in this area (University of Bristol SU 2021; Brook 2019; Imperial College Union 2022; Lagdon et al. 2022;National Union of Students 2010;Revolt Sexual Assault 2018;Steele et al. 2021) have prioritised sexual violence and harassment, this article focuses on the data collection instruments and findings around stalking and domestic abuse, areas which have been under-explored in higher education (HE) (DeKeseredy et al. 2017;Khan 2021). Stalking is defined here as 'a pattern of fixated and obsessive behaviour which is repeated, persistent, intrusive and causes fear of violence or engenders alarm and distress in the victim' (Suzy Lamplugh Trust 2021, p. 3), and domestic abuse is defined as 'any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence Soc. ...
... In a qualitative study carried out in the UK, Bull and Rye found evidence of students being subjected to stalking behaviours and domestic abuse from staff/faculty (Bull and Rye 2018); these sometimes escalated from 'grooming' and boundary-blurring behaviours (Bull and Page 2021). Studies of students' experiences of stalking, using different survey instruments and time periods (as discussed in more detail below) have found prevalence rates from 6.2% to 38% (DeKeseredy et al. 2014, p. 28;DeKeseredy et al. 2017;McCarry et al. 2021; National Union of Students 2010; Office for National Statistics 2020; Shorey et al. 2015;Speak Out Iowa 2021). Studies surveying only women students found higher rates. ...
Full-text available
Domestic abuse and stalking in higher education (HE) have been overlooked in research in comparison to sexual harassment and sexual violence. This article reports on survey data from 725 students at an English university using measures of stalking and ‘dating violence’—physical and psychological violence from an intimate partner—from a US survey instrument (the Administrator Researcher Campus Climate Collaborative (ARC3) survey). According to this measure, 26% of respondents had been subjected to ‘dating violence’ and 16% to stalking behaviours. However, these findings need to be contextualised within a critical discussion about the use of the ARC3 survey tool in the English context. The ARC3 questions on ‘dating violence’ focus on physical and ‘psychological violence’; the questions therefore omit further types of domestic abuse under UK definitions. In relation to stalking, US definitions—as captured in the ARC3 survey instrument—define specific behaviours. By contrast, in England and Wales, stalking involves behaviours that engender fear or distress in a pattern of behaviour over time. These differences mean that the ARC3 modules on stalking and ‘dating violence’ would need to be significantly adapted to be suitable for use in England and Wales.
... In some Canadian provinces, as many as 63% of female university students report experiencing sexual harassment (CCI Research 2019). These numbers are often higher among LGBTQIA+ and racialised youth, who are frequently targeted and rarely receive the culturally relevant support services they need to feel safe (DeKeseredy et al. 2017;Palmer, Williams, and Mennicke 2021). ...
... Toxic masculinity is a central ingredient of bro culture that binds men together in the pursuit of obnoxious and dangerous activities (Jackson and Sundaram 2018;Phipps et al. 2018;Poost 2018). Such activities include physical and online intimidation (Lee 2019;Navarro and Tewksbury 2017), misogynistic as well as homo-and-transphobic slurs directed at women, racialised and diversely gendered students (Diefendorf and Bridges 2020;DeKeseredy et al. 2017;Martis 2020), and sexual predation, which has been reported among up to 29% of male university students (Anderson et al. 2021. In North America, male fraternities, whose members often engage in humiliating hazing rituals, are additional spaces within which such forms of masculinity is consolidated (Massey and Massey 2017). ...
Full-text available
Despite decades of research and education, sexual and gender-based violence remain distressingly prevalent on university and college campuses globally. The taboos associated with sex, gender inequity, and living in a patriarchal world where misogyny is glorified and criminalised are key socio-cultural determinants driving these forms of violence. Less is known about the ways in which sexual slang or terminology impact how students experience and talk about these events. This paper reports on findings from a participatory action study that explored sexual slang use among female and male undergraduate students (n = 23) with the aim of creating more responsive sexual and gender-based violence policies and practices. The terms identified (n = 59) provide a window into the daily lives of these young people, who display remarkable socio-linguistic adaptation and creativity. They also demonstrate how cultural appropriation, the exclusion of queer students, toxic masculinitycontribute to ongoing incidents of sexual and gender-based violence on campus. These findings contribute new insights into sexual terminology among post-secondary students, particularly in the Canadian context where few studies of this nature exist. They also acknowledge the critical role universities can play in making meaningful structural change to prevent traumatic events from occurring.
... Thus, we cannot discern important differences in negative peer support across distinct ethnic groups (Lacey et al., 2021;West, 2021). A similar problem caused by small cell sizes plagues the limited number of studies of campus LGBTQ's negative peer support and polyvictimization experiences (DeKeseredy et al., 2017, DeKeseredy et al., 2021. ...
... Between 20% to 43% of women and 3% to 29% of men attending American universities have been sexually victimized (Cantor et al., 2017;Forsman, 2017), and in some Canadian provinces as many as 63% of female students have experienced sexual harassment (CCI Research, 2019). These rates are higher among youth from racialized and gender divergent communities (DeKeseredy et al., 2017;Palmer et al., 2021). Fraternity houses are a persistent source of concern and despite being known sites of sexual predation and alcohol and drug-related violence, they often evade regulations or policing because institutions choose to look the other way (Massey and Massey, 2017;Oliver, 2016;Rosenthal et al., 2017;Savva, 2019). ...
Full-text available
Research about campus safety focuses primarily on identifying problematic student behaviours (i.e., toxic partying, sexual violence) and institutional infrastructure (i.e., lighting, emergency services), to the exclusion of how safety, as an idea and embodied experience, is constructed. Using qualitive interview data from a partici-patory action research study conducted at Western University, this article uses a critical feminist lens to examine how undergraduate students (n = 23) and administrators (n = 7) spoke about campus safety as well as spatial vulnerability. Study participants shed compelling light on the "uncomfortable" feelings that pervade their movement across and within the university campus. Often presumed to be a spatially distinct place of privilege for all who work and attend classes within its reach, this is not always the case. Participants experienced this space as one of precarious privilege that reflects, reproduces, and sometimes protects hegemonic systems of white, male, cis-gender institutional power. This glimpse into the emotional geography of the campus sheds new light on safety culture and allied feminist research, specifically that which relates to the interplay between contested notions of safety as well as spatial vulnerability for two stakeholder communities in the neoliberal university.
... Gay, lesbian, and bisexual students and students who are uncertain of their identities report more SV compared with their heterosexual peers (Coulter et al., 2017;Murchison et al., 2017;Porter & McQuiller Williams, 2013;Soto-Marquez, 2016). Dekeseredy et al. found that 40% of sexual minority college students experienced one or more types of sexual assault, compared with 24% of heterosexual participants in a South Atlantic part of the United States (DeKeseredy et al., 2017). Ford and Soto Marquez also found a 20% higher rate of stalking victimisation among sexual minority students compared with heterosexual students, and homosexual and bisexual men reported sexual assault at frequencies similar to those reported by heterosexual women in the United States (Soto-Marquez, 2016). ...
Full-text available
This study aims to provide an estimate of lifetime sexual violence (SV) among male sexual minority college students with differing sexual orientations and contribute to the evidence base on the association between SV experience, stress, and depressive symptoms. The data stemmed from the 2019 Internet Survey on HIV/AIDS and Sexual Health in Colleges and Universities in Guangdong province, China. Lifetime SV victimisation (including non-sexual harassment, physical contact sexual harassment, and rape), level of stress, and depressive symptoms were examined among 1441 male sexual minority students from 37 colleges and universities in Guangdong province. Linear regression analyses were adopted to examine associations between independent variables and depressive symptoms. 23.4% (337/1441) of the participants reported lifetime non-contact harassment, while 8.8% (127/1441) and 2.4% (35/1441) of the participants reported physical contact sexual harassment and rape, respectively. Homosexual students reported the most physical contact sexual harassment (48/127, 37.8%) and bisexual students reported the most non-contact sexual harassment (102/337, 30.3%) and rape (10/35, 28.6%) among sexual minority participants; 85.6% participants reported high levels of stress. The experience of SV and the level of stress were significantly associated with depressive symptoms, and stress completely mediated the path from SV experiences to depressive symptoms. This study specifically showcases SV as a pervasive problem affecting Chinese male sexual minority college students and highlighting the severity of stress and depressive symptoms among this population. These findings emphasise the urgency of implementing effective practices and policies to address SV and depressive symptoms among male sexual minority college students in China.
Full-text available
Sexual and dating violence (SDV) by male youth (≤ 25 years)—including sexual harassment, emotional partner violence, and rape—is a worldwide problem. The goal of this preregistered (PROSPERO, ID: CRD42022281220) systematic review was to map existing SDV prevention programs aimed at male youth, including their characteristics (e.g., content, intensity), intended psychosexual outcomes, and empirically demonstrated effectiveness, guided by the principles of the theory of planned behavior (TPB). We conducted searches in six online databases for published, peer-reviewed quantitative effectiveness studies on multi-session, group focused, and interaction based SDV prevention programs for male youth ending March 2022. After screening of 21,156 hits using PRISMA guidelines, 15 studies on 13 different programs, from four continents were included. Narrative analysis showed, first, broad ranges in program intensity (2–48 h total), and few program curricula included explicit discussion of relevant aspects of the TPB. Second, programs’ main intended psychosexual outcomes were to change SDV experiences, or related attitudes, or norms. Third, significant effects were found mostly on longer term behaviors and short-term attitudes. Other theoretical proxies of SDV experiences, such as social norms and perceived behavioral control, were sparsely investigated; thus, program effectiveness on these outcomes remains largely unknown. Assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, moderate to serious risk of bias arose in all studies. We present concrete suggestions for program content, such as explicit attention to victimization and masculinity and discuss best practices for evaluation research, including assessments of program integrity, and examining relevant theoretical proxies of SDV.
The body of sexual assault research historically focuses on survivors, specifically female survivors. Examining the beliefs of men who endorse sexually violent or coercive behavior fills an important gap in the literature. The current study surveyed 420 male participants on their endorsement of coercive dating tactics as provided in a best-selling men's dating book, as well as endorsement of dating tactics generated from a sexual willingness framework. Overall, approximately 25% of male participants reported using or endorsing coercive sexual tactics. Several demographic factors and experiences related to higher endorsement of the coercive tactics, including past or present involvement in a fraternity, knowing a sexual assault perpetrator, affiliating with a religion, and frequent pornography viewing. The same individual factors related to endorsing the coercive tactics were associated with endorsing the willful tactics as well. Implications for greater representation in research for sexual minorities are discussed, as well as future direction for effective consent education.
Sexual and gender minority (SGM) students report higher alcohol consumption, emotion regulation difficulties, and sexual assault victimization severity than cisgender, heterosexual individuals. A sample of 754 undergraduate students completed an online survey assessing alcohol use, emotion regulation, and sexual victimization. Regression analyses indicated that, among SGM students with higher emotion regulation difficulties, typical weekly drinking was positively associated with sexual assault victimization severity, but among cisgender, heterosexual students and SGM students with lower emotion regulation difficulties, there was no association between drinking and victimization severity. Thus, SGM students benefit from interventions targeting alcohol use and emotion regulation difficulties.
Guided by lifestyles/routine activities and target congruence theories and using data from a campus climate survey from a large northeastern university, this study explored the influence of target (e.g., mental health, age, race), guardianship (e.g., relationship status, residency), and lifestyle characteristics (e.g., collegiate activities) on the risk of stalking victimization among 7,621 undergraduates. In addition to running models for the full sample, separate logistic regressions were completed for men (n = 3,544) and women (n = 4,077), and for those who identify as either lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, or queer (LGBTQ, n = 612) and those who do not (non-LGBTQ, n = 6,923). Results show target vulnerabilities including having lower scores on mental health and being younger increased victimization risk, guardianship factors including being married or living with parents or on campus reduced the risk of victimization, and lifestyle characteristics including participation in collegiate activities increased victimization risk. Consistent with prior research, those who identify as LGBTQ and women had higher odds of victimization than their respective counterparts. However, coefficient tests revealed only three risk factors varied significantly across sex (i.e., age and media activity) and LGBTQ status (i.e., mental health). Implications for research and campus policy are discussed.
Full-text available
College students report high rates of sexual assault and relationship abuse victimization, which is associated with a wide range of negative health outcomes. The purpose of this study was to examine students' reported sexual assault and relationship abuse victimization among male, female, and transgender undergraduate students, using data from the Fall 2014 National College Health Assessment. Just over 9% of participants (n = 1805) reported having experienced nonconsensual sexual touching, nearly 4% (n = 767) experienced an attempted sexual penetration, and just over 2% experienced completed sexual penetration in the previous 12 months. Chi-square analysis showed that students' gender was significantly related to nonconsensual sexual touch, attempted penetration, and completed penetration. Logistic regression showed that female and transgender students had significantly greater odds of reporting nonconsensual sexual touch (OR = 3.5 and 4.1, respectively), attempted penetration (OR = 4.4 and 5.3, respectively), and completed penetration (OR = 4.05 and 4.9, respectively) compared with male students. Regarding relationship abuse, just over 8% (n = 1622) of students reported emotional abuse, whereas just under 2% (n = 378) reported physical abuse, and just over 2% (n = 426) reported sexual abuse by romantic partner. Chi-square analyses showed that students' gender was significantly related to emotional and sexual abuse, but not physical abuse victimization. Logistic regression showed that female and transgender students had significantly greater odds of reporting victimization of relationship emotional abuse (OR = 1.9 and 1.7, respectively) and sexual abuse (OR 2.5 and 6.1, respectively) compared with male students, but not physical abuse. The findings suggest that transgender students, in addition to female students, are vulnerable to a range of victimization, and prevention efforts should consider their needs in outreach and programming efforts to better serve this population.
Full-text available
The rise of sexual assault reporting on college campuses has prompted extensive scholarly inquiry and debate. Overall, the central focus of the college sexual assault debate has centered on heterosexual female victims. As a result, academic research has hardly focused on the actual prevalence of college sexual assault for heterosexual males or for gay, lesbian, or bisexual individuals of either gender. To address this empirical gap in the sexual assault literature, this study investigates both the prevalence of sexual assault and its associated factors for straight, bisexual, and gay individuals. Our analyses use data from the Online College Social Life Survey (OCSLS), which is a cross-sectional survey of 21,000 students. As has been widely reported from previous studies, we find that around one in every four heterosexual women experience sexual assault after four years in college. We also find that gay and bisexual men report sexual assault at frequencies similar to those reported by heterosexual women. Bisexual women were the most vulnerable to sexual assault in college, as nearly two out of every five bisexual female college students had experienced sexual assault after four years in college. Greek life (e.g., membership in fraternities or sororities) proved to be strongly associated with higher prevalence of sexual assault for most groups of students. Sexual assault survivors also reported having participated in their college hookup culture at higher levels. We hope that these findings will help university administrators and counseling centers more adequately address and reduce sexual assault for all groups of students on college campuses.
Nationally representative studies confirm that LGBTQ individuals are at an elevated risk of experiencing intimate partner violence. While many similarities exist between LGBTQ and heterosexual-cisgender intimate partner violence, research has illuminated a variety of unique aspects of LGBTQ intimate partner violence regarding the predictors of perpetration, the specific forms of abuse experienced, barriers to help-seeking for victims, and policy and intervention needs. This is the first book that systematically reviews the literature regarding LGBTQ intimate partner violence, draws key lessons for current practice and policy, and recommends research areas and enhanced methodologies. © 2017 by Th e Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Abusive Endings offers a thorough analysis of the social-science literature on one of the most significant threats to the health and well-being of women today-abuse at the hands of their male partners. The authors provide a moving description of why and how men abuse women in myriad ways during and after a separation or divorce. The material is punctuated with the stories and voices of both perpetrators and survivors of abuse, as told to the authors over many years of fieldwork. Written in a highly readable fashion, this book will be a useful resource for researchers, practitioners, activists, and policy makers. © 2017 by Th e Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Since the mid-1980s, researchers across the United States have uncovered high rates of sexual assault among female college students. However, to advance a better understanding of this gendered type of victimization, and to both prevent and control this problem, the research community needs to identify its major correlates. One that is consistently uncovered in North American campus survey work is negative peer support, especially that provided by male peers. Yet, some earlier studies have found that mixed-sex negative peer support, too, contributes to campus sexual assault. Using recent data from the Campus Quality of Life Survey conducted at a large residential school in the South Atlantic region of the United States, the main objectives of this article are to examine the role of mixed-sex negative peer support in campus sexual assault and to identify the groups of women most at risk of having friends who offer such support.
This book provides the first detailed discussion of domestic violence and abuse in same sex relationships, offering a unique comparison between this and domestic violence and abuse experienced by heterosexual women and men. It examines how experiences of domestic violence and abuse may be shaped by gender, sexuality and age, including whether and how victims/survivors seek help, and asks, what’s love got to do with it? A pioneering methodology, using both quantitative and qualitative research, provides a reliable and valid approach that challenges the heteronormative model in domestic violence research, policy and practice. The authors develops a new framework of analysis - practices of love - to explore empirical data. Outlining the implications of the research for practice and service development, the book will be of interest to policy makers and practitioners in the field of domestic violence, especially those who provide services for sexual minorities, as well as students and academics interested in issues of domestic and interpersonal violence.
It has been more than a decade since Karjane, Fisher, and Cullen reviewed a nationally representative sample of Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) and documented "sexual assault on college campuses" and "what colleges are doing about it." The current research aimed to examine the current state of IHE's response to campus sexual assault as well as any changes in IHE's response over the previous decade. To this end, the present study provides a comparison of data reported in Karjane et al. and 2015 data from a statistically equivalent sample (n = 820). IHE's utilization of policies and procedures that reflect recent guidance by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and best practices indicated by the 2014 White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault are also presented and discussed.
Sexual assault is a pervasive problem on university and college campuses in the United States that has garnered growing national attention, particularly in the past year. This is the first study to systematically review and synthesize prevalence findings from studies on campus sexual assault (CSA) published since 2000 (n = 34). The range of prevalence findings for specific forms of sexual victimization on college campuses (i.e., forcible rape, unwanted sexual contact, incapacitated rape, sexual coercion, and studies' broad definitions of CSA/rape) is provided, and methodological strengths and limitations in the empirical body of research on CSA are discussed. Prevalence findings, research design, methodology, sampling techniques, and measures, including the forms of sexual victimization measured, are presented and evaluated across studies. Findings suggest that unwanted sexual contact appears to be most prevalent on college campuses, including sexual coercion, followed by incapacitated rape, and completed or attempted forcible rape. Additionally, several studies measured broad constructs of sexual assault that typically include combined forms of college-based sexual victimization (i.e., forcible completed or attempted rape, unwanted sexual contact, and/or sexual coercion). Extensive variability exists within findings for each type of sexual victimization measured, including those that broadly measure sexual assault, which is largely explained by differences in sampling strategies and overall study designs as well as measures of sexual assault used in studies. Implications for findings and recommendations for future research on the prevalence of college-based sexual victimization are provided.