Sexuality Research and Social Policy

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 133–142 | Cite as

Perceptions of University Policies to Prevent Sexual Assault on Campus Among College Students in the USA

Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to assess correlations between attitude, opinions, and perceptions of sexual assault on campus and perceptions of university policies related to sexual assault among college students. Students (N = 507) at a large public university in the intermountain west region of the USA completed a survey in February and March 2015. Multivariable multiple regression was conducted to test the association between perceptions of students regarding university polices on sexual assault and individual factors. The factors that were predictive for student perceptions of sexual assault policy importance included student gender, affiliation with a campus organization, previous report of sexual assault to university officials, and adherence to particular anti-rape attitudes. Attitudes and perceptions of sexual assault may be very important for successful implementation of university policies related to sexual assault.

Keywords

Sexual assault University policy Safety Violence prevention 

References

  1. Aronowitz, T., Lambert, C. A., & Davidoff, S. (2012). The role of rape myth acceptance in the social norms regarding sexual behavior among college students. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 29, 173–182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Banyard, V. L., Eckstein, R. P., & Moynihan, M. M. (2010). Sexual violence prevention: the role of stages of change. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 111–135.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Borges, A. M., Banyard, V. L., & Moynihan, M. M. (2008). Clarifying consent: primary prevention of sexual assault on a college campus. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 36, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coker, A. L., Cook-Craig, P. G., Williams, C. M., Fisher, B. S., Clear, E. R., Garcia, L. S., & Hegge, L. M. (2011). Evaluation of green dot: an active bystander intervention to reduce sexual violence on college campuses. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 777–796.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Evans, R. C. (2007). Central Limit Theorem. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Gidycz, C.A., Orchowski, L.M., King, C.R., Rich, C.L. (2008). Sexual Victimization and Health-Risk Behaviors: A Prospective Analysis of College Women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23.6, 744--763.Google Scholar
  7. Gidycz, C. A., Orchowski, L. M., & Berkowitz, A. D. (2011). Preventing sexual aggression among college men: an evaluation of a social norms and bystander intervention program. Violence Against Women, 17, 720–742.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Grubb, A., & Turner, E. (2012). Attribution of blame in rape cases: a review of the impact of rape myth acceptance, gender role conformity and substance use on victim blaming. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 443–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Joseph, J. S., Gray, M. J., & Mayer, J. (2013). Addressing sexual assault within social systems: system justification as a barrier to college prevention efforts. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 22, 493–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kirkpatrick, D.G., Resnick, H.S., Ruggiero, K.J., Conoscenti, M.A., McCauley, M.S. (2007). Drug-facilitated, incapacitated, and forcible rape: a national study. U.S. Department of Justice Award Number: 2005-WG-BX-0006. Charleston, SC: National Crime Victims Research & Treatment Center.Google Scholar
  11. Krebs, C., Lindquist, C., Warner, T., Fisher, B., & Martin, S. (2009). College women’s experiences with physically forced, alchohol- or other drug-enabled, and drug-facilitated sexual assault before and since entering college. Journal of American College Health, 57, 639–649.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kress, V. E., Shepard, B. J., Anderson, R. I., Petuch, A. J., Nolan, J. M., & Thiemeke, D. (2006). Evaluation of the impact of a coeducational sexual assault prevention program on college students’ rape myth attitudes. Journal of College Counseling, 9, 148–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lanier, C. A., & Elliott, M. N. (1997). A new instrument for the evaluation of a date rape prevention program. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 673–676.Google Scholar
  14. Lanier, C. A., & Green, B. A. (2006). Principal Component Analysis of the College Date Rape Attitude Survey (CDRAS). Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 13(2), 79–93. doi:10.1300/J146v13n02_06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McMahon, S. (2008). Sexual violence on the college campus: a template for compliance with federal policy. Journal of American College Health, 57, 361–366.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. McMahon, S. (2010). Rape myth beliefs and bystander attitudes among incoming college students. Journal of American College Health, 59, 3–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. McMahon, S., & Banyard, V. L. (2012). When can I help? A conceptual framework for the prevention of sexual violence through bystander intervention. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 13, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McMahon, S., & Farmer, L. G. (2011). An updated measure for assessing subtle rape myths. Social Work Research, 35, 71–81.Google Scholar
  19. Mouliso, E., & Calhoun, K. S. (2013). The role of rape myth acceptance and psychopathy in sexual assault perpetration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 22, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nickerson, A., Steenkamp, M., Aerka, I. M., Salters-Pedneault, K., Carper, T. L., Barnes, J. B., & Litz, B. T. (2013). Prospective investigation of mental health following sexual assault. Depression and Anxiety, 30, 444–450.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Orchowski, L. M., Meyer, D. H., & Gidycz, C. A. (2009). College women’s likelihood to report unwanted sexual experiences to campus agencies: trends and correlates. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18, 839–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Payne, D. L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois rape myth acceptance scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27–68.Google Scholar
  23. Rau, T. J., Merrill, L. L., McWorter, S. K., Stander, V. A., Thomsen, C. J., Dyslin, C. W., Crouch, J. L., Rabenhorst, M. M., & Milner, J. S. (2010). Evaluation of a sexual assault education/prevention program for male U.S. navy personnel. Military Medicine, 175(6), 429–434.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Sedgwick, J. L. (2006). Criminal victimization in the United States, 2005 statistical tables: national crime victimization survey. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  25. Sorenson, S. B., Joshi, M., & Sivitz, E. (2014). Knowing a sexual assault victim or perpetrator: a stratified random sample of undergraduates at one university. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 394–416.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Stewart, A. L. (2014). The men’s project: a sexual assault prevention program targeting college men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15, 481–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Streng, T. K., & Kamimura, A. (2015). Sexual assault prevention and reporting on college campuses in the US: a review of policies and recommendations. Journal of Education and Practice, 6, 3.Google Scholar
  28. Suarez, E., & Gadalla, T. M. (2010). Stop blaming the victim: a meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2010–2035.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. University of Alabama. (2014). Policies and Procedures for Students. [Online] Available at: http://www.studenthandbook.ua.edu/policyforstudents.html. Accessed 24 Sept 2014.
  30. University of California. (2014). University of California Policy, Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence. Available at: http://policy.ucop.edu/doc/4000385/SHSV. Accessed 19 Dec 2014.
  31. University of Iowa. (2013). Sexual Misconduct Involving Students, Including Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment. University of Iowa. Available at: http://www.uiowa.edu/∼our/opmanual/iv/02.htm#21, http://dos.uiowa.edu/policies/. Accessed 24 Sept 2014.
  32. University of Michigan. (2014). University of Michigan Policy on Sexual Misconduct by Students. Available at: http://studentsexualmisconductpolicy.umich.edu/content/university-michigan-policy-sexual-misconduct. Accessed 19 Dec 2014.
  33. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. (2014). Policy on Prohibited Discrimination, Harassment and Related Misconduct. [Online] Available at: http://sexualassaultanddiscriminationpolicy.unc.edu/. Accessed 19 Dec 2014.
  34. University of Oregon. (2014). UO Policy Prohibiting Sexual Harassment, Including Sexual Assault, Intimate Partner/Relationship Violence, and Gender-Based Stalking and Bullying. [Online] Available at: http://aaeo.uoregon.edu/policy-prohibiting-sexual harassment-including-sexual-assault-intimate-partnerrelationship-violence. Accessed 29 Oct 2014.
  35. University of Utah. (2014). Interim University Policy 1-012: Sexual Misconduct: Sexual Assault Dating Violence, Domestic Violence, and Stalking, Prevention and Response. Rev 1. Available at: http://regulations.utah.edu/general/1-012.php. Accessed 6 Oct 2014.
  36. Vance, K., Sutter, M., Berrin, P. B., & Heesacker, M. (2015). The media’s sexual objectification of women, rape myth acceptance, and interpersonal violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24(5), 569–587. doi:10.1080/10926771.2015.1029179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weizel, L. M. (2012). The process that is due: preponderance of the evidence as the standard of proof for university adjudications of student-on-student sexual assault complaints. Boston College Law Review, 53, 1613–1655.Google Scholar
  38. White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. (2014). Not Alone. Washington: District of Columbia.Google Scholar
  39. Zinzow, H., Amstadter, A. B., McCauley, J. L., Ruggerio, K. J., Resnick, H., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (2011). Self-rated health in relation to rape and mental health disorders in a national sample of women. Journal of American College Health, 59(7), 588–594.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations