Abstract
Students are direct participants in university procedures to respond to campus sexual assault claims under Title IX law. Yet, the ways in which students understand procedural justice in the adjudication of campus sexual assault remains understudied. We presented a sample of students at a large, public university with three hypothetical scenarios in which an accused student admits, claims to have misunderstood consent, or denies a report of forcible rape. Using mixed methods to analyze student views of punishment for each scenario, we found that participants assigned the least sanctions, guilt, and responsibility to an accused student who denied a report of rape compared to a student who claimed to have misunderstood consent. Participants assigned the highest sanctions, guilt, and responsibility to the accused student who admitted to rape. In their explanations, few students discussed concern for the victim or the victim’s right to education. When the accused student evaded responsibility, students failed to apply affirmative consent, drew on the catchphrase “he said, she said,” and expressed victim questioning and blame. Our findings suggest that victim-survivors may be exposed to criticism when an accused student contradicts a report of rape. We recommend practitioners adjust Title IX trainings and adjudication procedures accordingly.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alderden, M. A., & Ullman, S. E. (2012). Creating a more complete and current picture. Violence Against Women, 18(5), 525–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212453867
Baker, J. (2010). Claiming volition and evading victimhood: Post-feminist obligations for young women. Feminism & Psychology, 20(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353509359142
Baldwin-White, A. (2021). When a girl says no, you should ve persistent until she says yes”: College students and their beliefs about consent. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19–20), NP10619–NP10644. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519875552
Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., & Smith, S. G. (2016). Disability and risk of recent sexual violence in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 106(5), 928–933. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2015.303004
Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Kresnow, M., Khatiwada, S., & Leemis, R. W. (2022). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2016/2017 Report on sexual violence. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs/nisvsReportonSexualViolence.pdf
Bay-Cheng, L. Y., & Eliseo-Arras, R. K. (2008). The making of unwanted sex: Gendered and neoliberal norms in college women’s unwanted sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 45(4), 386–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490802398381
Bedera, N. (2022). The illusion of choice: Organizational dependency and the neutralization of university sexual assault complaints. Law & Policy, 44(3), 208–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12194
Behre, K. A. (2020). The role of attorneys in campus adjudications involving sexual misconduct. In C. M. Renzetti, & D. R. Follingstad (Eds.), Adjudicating campus sexual misconduct and assault: Controversies and challenges (pp. 117–131). Cognella Academic Publishing
Belknap, J. (2010). Rape: Too hard to report and too easy to discredit victims. Violence Against Women, 16(12), 1335–1344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801210387749
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.3
Brake, D. L. (2020). Standards of proof for campus sexual misconduct cases. In C. M. Renzetti, & D. R. Follingstad (Eds.), Adjudicating campus sexual misconduct and assault: Controversies and challenges (pp. 133–158). Cognella Academic Publishing.
Brewin, C., & Antaki, C. (1987). An analysis of ordinary explanations in clinical attribution research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1987.5.1.79
Brown, S. (2018). Making sexual-assault hearings fair: How colleges train and choose those who serve on Title IX panels is changing. Chronicle of Higher Education, Q8-A13. https://www.chronicle.com/article/making-sexual-assault-hearings-fair/
Canan, S. N., Jozkowski, K. N., Wiersma-Mosley, J. D., Bradley, M., & Blunt-Vinti, H. (2021). Differences in lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women’s experiences of sexual assault and rape in a national U.S. sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19–20), 9100–9120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519863725
Cantalupo, N. C. (2016). For the title IX civil rights movement: Congratulations and cautions. The Yale Law Journal Forum, 125(Forum), 281. http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/for-the-title-ix-civil-rights-movement-congratulations-and-cautions
Cantalupo, N. C. (2020). Civil rights investigations and comprehensive prevention of sexual misconduct. In C. M. Renzetti, & D. R. Follingstad (Eds.), Adjudicating campus sexual misconduct and assault: Controversies and challenges (pp. 91–116). Cognella Academic Publishing.
Citron, D. K. (2014). Hate crimes in cyberspace. Harvard University Press. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/books/91
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge Academic. https://www.utstat.toronto.edu/~brunner/oldclass/378f16/readings/CohenPower.pdf
Daigle, L. E., Fisher, B. S., & Cullen, F. T. (2008). The violent and sexual victimization of college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(9), 1296–1313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508314293
DeLong, S. M., Graham, L. M., Magee, E. P., Treves-Kagan, S., Gray, C. L., McClay, A. M., Zarnick, S. M., Kupper, L. L., Macy, R. J., Ashley, O. S., Pettifor, A., Moracco, K. E., & Martin, S. L. (2018). Starting the conversation: Are campus sexual assault policies related to the prevalence of campus sexual assault? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(21), 3315–3343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518798352
Ehrlich, S. (1998). The discursive reconstruction of sexual consent. Discourse & Society, 9(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926598009002002
Forsman, R. L. (2017). Prevalence of sexual assault victimization among college men, aged 18–24: A review. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 14(6), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/23761407.2017.1369204
Freedman, E. B. (2013). Redefining rape: Sexual violence in the era of suffrage and segregation. Harvard University Press
Gavey, N. (2005). Just sex? The cultural scaffolding of rape. Routledge.
Golding, J. M., Lynch, K. R., & Renzetti, C. M. (2022). Beyond the stranger in the woods: Investigating the complexity of adult rape cases in the courtroom. In Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 6, pp. 1–37). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13733-4_1
Gómez, J. M. (2021). Gender, campus sexual violence, cultural betrayal, institutional betrayal, and institutional support in U.S. ethnic minority college students: A descriptive study. Violence Against Women, 28(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801221998757
Gravelin, C. R., Biernat, M., & Bucher, C. E. (2019). Blaming the victim of acquaintance rape: Individual, situational, and sociocultural factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02422
Gruber, A. (2020). The complexity of college consent. In C. M. Renzetti, & D. R. Follingstand (Eds.), Adjudicating campus sexual misconduct and assault. Controversies and challenges (pp. 133–158). Cognella Academic Publishing.
Hamilton, V. L. (1978). Who is responsible? Toward a social psychology of responsibility attribution. Social Psychology, 41(4), 316–328. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033584
Herbenick, D., Fu, T., Valdivia, D. S., Patterson, C., Gonzalez, Y. R., Guerra-Reyes, L., Eastman-Mueller, H., Beckmeyer, J., & Rosenberg, M. (2021). What is rough sex, who does it, and who likes it? Findings from a probability sample of U.S. undergraduate students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(3), 1183–1195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-01917-w
Hirsch, J. S., & Khan, S. (2020). Sexual citizens: Sex, power, and assault on campus. W. W. Norton & Company. https://www.sexualcitizens.com
Hockett, J. M., Smith, S. J., Klausing, C. D., & Saucier, D. A. (2016). Rape myth consistency and gender differences in perceiving rape victims. Violence Against Women, 22(2), 139–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215607359
Holland, K. J., & Cortina, L. M. (2017). It happens to girls all the time”: Examining sexual assault survivors’ reasons for not using campus supports. American Journal of Community Psychology, 59(1–2), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12126
Koss, M. P., Wilgus, J. K., Williamsen, K. M., & Trauma (2014). Violence and Abuse, 15(3),242–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014521500
Koss, M. P., Swartout, K. M., Lopez, E. C., Lamade, R. V., Anderson, E. J., Brennan, C. L., & Prentky, R. A. (2022). The scope of rape victimization and perpetration among National samples of college students across 30 years. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(1–2), NP25–NP47. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211050103
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer to t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863. 4
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lazar, R. (2010). Negotiating sex: The legal construct of consent in cases of wife rape in Ontario, Canada. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 22(2), 329–363. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjwl.22.2.329
Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb0044
Lopez, E. C., Koss, M. P., Karp, D. R., & Wilgus, J. K. (2020). Restorative justice for campus sexual misconduct. In C. M. Renzetti, & D. R. Follingstand (Eds.), Adjudicating campus sexual misconduct and assaul: Controversies and challenges (pp. 227–243). Cognella Academic Publishing
MacKinnon, C. A. (2016). In their hands: Restoring institutional liability for sexual harassment in education. The Yale Law Journal, 125(7), 2038–2105. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/in-their-hands-restoring-institutional-liability-for-sexual-harassment-in-education
Maier, S. L. (2008). I have heard horrible stories… rape victim advocates’ perceptions of the revictimization of rape victims by the police and medical system. Violence Against Women, 14, 786–808. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208320245
Maier, S. L. (2012). The complexity of victim-questioning attitudes by rape victim advocates. Violence Against Women, 18(12), 1413–1434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212474432
Mancini, C. (2020). Mandatory reporting in context: Development, concerns, and best practices. In C. M. Renzetti, & D. R. Follingstad (Eds.), Adjudicating campus sexual misconduct and assault: Controversies and challenges (pp. 3–24). Cognella Academic Publishing
Marg, L. Z. (2020). College men’s conceptualization of sexual consent at a large, racially/ethnically diverse southern California university. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 15(3), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1737291
McCallion, G. (2014). History of the Clery Act: Fact sheet. Congressional Research Service Report to Members and Committees of Congress. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc491195/
McKimmie, B. M., Masser, B. M., & Bongiorno, R. (2014). What counts as rape? The effect of offense prototypes, victim stereotypes, and participant gender on how the complainant and defendant are perceived. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(12), 2273–2303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513518843
Melnick, R. S. (2020, June 11). Analyzing the department of education’s final Title IX rules on sexual misconduct. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/research/analyzing-the-department-of-educations-final-title-ix-rules-on-sexual-misconduct/
Muehlenhard, C. L., Peterson, Z. D., Humphreys, T. P., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2017). Evaluating the one-in-five statistic: Women’s risk of sexual assault while in college. The Journal of Sex Research, 54(4–5), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1295014
Mulder, E., & Olsohn, S. (2021). Scripted reality: How observers make sense of a non-consensual sexual encounter. Sex Roles, 85(1–2), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01203-4
Orenstein, A. (2007). Special issues raised by rape trials. Fordham Law Review, 76(3), 1585–1608. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/flr76&i=1601
Pinciotti, C. M., & Orcutt, H. K. (2021). Institutional betrayal: Who is most vulnerable? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(11–12), 5036–5054. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518802850
Rennison, C. M. (2020). Sexual misconduct and assault cases on campus and in the justice system: A comparison. In C. M. Renzetti, & D. R. Follingstad (Eds.), Adjudicating campus sexual misconduct and assaul: Controversies and challenges (pp. 3–24). Cognella Academic Publishing.
Richards, T. N. (2019). No evidence of “weaponized title IX” here: An empirical assessment of sexual misconduct reporting, case processing, and outcomes. Law and Human Behavior, 43(2), 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000316
Richards, T. N., & Rennison, C. M. (2022). Title IX and yellow zone behavior: An introduction to the special issue. Feminist Criminology, 17(3), 315–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/15570851221088357
Richards, T. N., Gillespie, L. K., & Claxton, T. (2021). Examining incidents of sexual misconduct reported to title IX coordinators: Results from New York’s institutions of higher education. Journal of School Violence, 20(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2021.1913599
Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. The SAGE Handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 170–183). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.n12
Shaver, K. G., & Drown, D. (1986). On causality, responsibility, and self-blame: A theoretical note. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 697–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.697
Stader, D. L., & Williams-Cunningham, J. L. (2017). Campus sexual assault, institutional betrayal, and title IX. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies. Issues and Ideas, 90(5–6), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2017.1361287
Tani, K. M. (2017). An administrative right to be free from sexual violence? Title IX enforcement in historical and institutional perspective. Duke Law Journal, 66, 1847–1900. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol66/iss8/5/
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (1997). Sexual harassment guidance: Harassment of students by school employees, other students, or third parties (Doc 62 FR 12034). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1997/03/13/97-6373/office-for-civil-rights-sexual-harassment-guidance-harassment-of-students-by-school-employees-other
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (2001). Revised sexual harassment guidance: Harassment of students by school employees, other students, or third parties (Doc 66 FR 5512). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/01/19/01-1606/revised-sexual-harassment-guidance-harassment-of-students-by-school-employees-other-students-or
Weiser, D. A. (2017). Confronting myths about sexual assault: A feminist analysis of the false report literature. Family Relations, 66(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12235
Yung, C. R. (2016). Is relying on Title IX a mistake? Kansas Law Review, 64, 892–913. https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/25516/2-Yung_Final.pdf
Zehrt, L. R. (2019). Title IX and title VII: Parallel remedies in combatting sex discrimination in educational employment. Marquette Law Review, 102(3), 701–745. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5396&context=mulr
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Full Vignette Text
Allison was invited to a party off campus at the house of some students who her friends knew. One guy at the party, Rob, seemed very interested in her and they spent time together during the evening. Later, Rob convinced Allison to come upstairs to his room because he had some liquor. The next day, Allison reported that she had been sexually assaulted by Rob. [Admit: The investigation that followed resulted in Allison claiming that Rob ignored her statements that she did not want to have sex and forced her. When Rob was told of Allison’s claim that she had not been willing to have sex he admitted that she said she did not want to have sex but that he had been quite drunk and went ahead anyway.] OR
[Claim to Have Misunderstood: The investigation that followed resulted in Allison claiming that Rob ignored her statements that she did not want to have sex and he forced her. When Rob was told of Allison’s claim that she had not been willing to have sex, he seemed surprised. He said he thought they had been consensually acting out a scenario in which she resisted and his role was to convince her, and he was sorry if he had misunderstood.] OR
[Deny: The investigation that followed resulted in very discrepant stories by the two people involved with Allison claiming that Rob ignored her statements that she did not want to have sex and forced her and Rob claiming that she had been willing at the time to have sex.]
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kistler, L.C., Renzetti, C.M., Follingstad, D.R. et al. Students’ Perceptions of Guilt, Responsibility, and Just Punishment When Accounts of Campus Sexual Assault Conflict. Sex Roles 88, 529–546 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01371-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01371-z