Interpersonal Violence Victimization Among Youth Entering College: A Preliminary Analysis Examining the Differences Between LGBTQ and Non-LGBTQ Youth

Abstract

Evidence from the literature suggests that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people are at greater risk of experiencing sexual victimization (SV) and intimate partner physical violence (IPPV) than their heterosexual and cisgender peers. Although there has been a plethora of recent research investigating the victimization experiences among LGBTQ adults, little research has examined victimization among LGBTQ youth. The current study consists of a preliminary analysis that compares the prevalence rates of SV and IPPV between LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ youth entering college. First-year students at a large Midwestern university were asked to complete an online questionnaire containing comprehensive measures of SV and IPPV. Results suggested that LGBTQ youth (n = 41) experienced higher rates of nearly every type of violent victimization when compared with their non-LGBTQ peers (n = 350). These results support previous research, which suggests LGBTQ people are at increased risk to be sexually and physically victimized. The results also extended the extant literature by utilizing a subsample of LGBTQ youth, among whom there is a particular dearth of research, relative to adults. This research is a step toward understanding the types of victimization experiences encountered by LGBTQ youth and provides descriptive details that may help to inform future research, school policy, and interventions aimed at improving the safety, health, and well-being of the LGBTQ community.

Literature suggests that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the United States are at greater risk of experiencing sexual victimization (SV) and intimate partner physical violence (IPPV) than their heterosexual and cisgender peers (e.g., Bender and Lauritsen 2021; Chen et al. 2020; Johnson et al. 2016; Langenderfer-Magruder et al. 2016; Martin-Storey 2015); such victimization experiences are associated with health-related consequences (Reuter et al. 2017; Whitton et al. 2019b). Although prevalence rates vary considerably across studies (Decker et al. 2018; Edwards et al. 2015; Peitzmeier et al. 2020; Wirtz et al. 2020), recent estimates suggest that ∼46% of lesbian women, 69% of bisexual women, 38% of gay men, and 39% of bisexual men are sexually victimized within their lifetime, whereas lifetime prevalence rates of IPPV are 40%, 50%, 30%, and 32%, respectively (Chen et al. 2020). Additionally, 21% of gay/lesbian and 29% of bisexual/pansexual college students experience SV, whereas 60% of sexual minority college students experience IPPV while in college (Gillum 2017; Kammer-Kerwick et al. 2019). Risk of victimization appears to be even higher among transgender individuals (Johnson et al. 2016; Langenderfer-Magruder et al. 2016; Whitton et al. 2019b), wherein lifetime prevalence rates have been reported as high as 63% and 67% for SV and IPPV, respectively (Peitzmeier et al. 2020; Wirtz et al. 2020).

Despite the relative wealth of research examining SV and IPPV in LGBTQ adults, there is dearth of research examining these types of victimization before college. Of the few studies that have, researchers reported higher prevalence rates for SV (i.e., lesbian and bisexual girls: 17–43%, gay and bisexual boys: 15–32%, heterosexual girls: 9–27%, heterosexual boys: 3–6%; Saewyc et al. 2006) and IPPV (i.e., LGB youth: 43%, heterosexual youth: 29%; Dank et al. 2014) compared with heterosexual and cisgender youth. However, these studies did not assess SV using the behavioral-based measures that are typically utilized in SV research (e.g., Koss et al. 1987), leaving it unclear, which specific types of SV experiences LGBTQ youth encounter. The current study aims to address this limitation by assessing a wide range of victimization experiences, which is expected to provide a more comprehensive, yet preliminary, understanding of the types of experiences encountered by LGBTQ youth entering college.

The hypotheses for the current study were informed by minority stress theory. Minority stress theory (Meyer 2003) posits that the increased rates of victimization encountered by LGBTQ people are the result of stigma. Specifically, environmental contexts that are hostile toward homosexuality, gender nonconformity, and other perceived violations of societal gender norms may put LGBTQ individuals at risk for aggressive victimization as a form of gender role enforcement (Herek 2007; Parrott et al. 2011). Hostile social environments also may contribute to feelings of stress, worthlessness, and internalized homophobia among LGBTQ people (Herek 2007; Meyer 2003). Minority stressors and their associated cognitions could, therefore, increase the likelihood of intimate partner violence—which is commonly bidirectional (Whitton et al. 2019a)—as the perpetrator attempts to regain power, achieve control, and establish self-worth (Edwards and Sylaska 2013). Prior research suggests that school environments are often rife with minority stressors (e.g., homophobia) and may elevate the risk of victimization among LGBTQ students (e.g., Adelman and Woods 2006; Allen 2019, 2020; Hong and Garbarino 2012). Thus, in accordance with minority stress theory (Meyer 2003), it was expected that LGBTQ youth in the current study would report significantly higher prevalence and a greater number of experiences associated with SV and IPPV when compared with their non-LGBTQ counterparts.

Materials and Methods

Participants

The sample consisted of 391 first-year college students from a large suburban university in the Midwestern United States. The majority of participants were assigned female at birth (280, 71.6%), whereas 111 (28.4%) were assigned male at birth. Five (4.5%) male participants and 41 (14.6%) female participants agreed with the statement “I identify as a member of the LGBTQ community” and were classified as “LGBTQ.” Participants who did not agree with the statement were classified as “non-LGBTQ” (see the “Limitations” section for a discussion of these classifications and their methodological shortcomings). Table 1 presents the demographic breakdown of sex assigned at birth, age, and race/ethnicity for each group. All participants were “true” freshmen (i.e., did not previously attend another college or university) with an average age of 18.21 years (SD 0.48). The race/ethnicity of the respondents was White (297, 76.0%), Black (26, 6.6%), Asian American (23, 5.9%), Middle Eastern/Arabic (21, 5.4%), Multiracial (10, 2.6%), Hispanic/Latino(a) (9, 2.3%), or not listed (5, 1.3%). More than half of the participants lived in on-campus dormitories (215, 55.0%), whereas those who lived off-campus lived with family (168, 43.0%) or in a private residence (8, 2.0%). Fields of study were diverse with Health Sciences (127, 32.5%) and Arts and Humanities (62, 15.9%) being the largest categories. The majority of the participants were born in the United States or Canada (375, 95.9%) and spoke English as a first language (364, 93.1%).

Table 1.

Demographics of the LGBTQ and Non-LGBTQ Groups

	LGBTQ (n = 46)	Non-LGBTQ (n = 345)	Total (N = 391)
Sex assigned at birth
Male	5 (10.9%)	106 (30.7%)	111 (28.4%)
Female	41 (89.1%)	239 (69.3%)	280 (71.6%)
Age
18	39 (84.8%)	276 (80.0%)	315 (80.6%)
19 or older	7 (15.2%)	69 (20.0%)	76 (19.4%)
Race/ethnicity
European American or White	32 (69.6%)	265 (76.8%)	297 (76.0%)
Person of color	14 (30.4%)	80 (23.2%)	94 (24.0%)

Participants who were 19 years of age or older, and people of color, were combined in the table to protect against confidentiality concerns (i.e., deductive disclosure).

LGBTQ, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer.

Procedure

The data were taken from a Campus Climate Survey at a large suburban university in the Midwestern United States; data were collected from November to January (i.e., ∼2 to 4 months into participants' first year of college). Freshmen were required to attend an orientation where they were solicited to enroll in a registry. All participants in the registry (n = 1323) were sent an email inviting them to participate in the online survey (n = 1323). Those who were interested first provided electronic consent (n = 415), which resulted in a response rate of 31.4%. A total of 391 respondents completed the survey. Upon completion of the study, participants were provided with on-campus resources (e.g., counseling services) and compensated with an Amazon gift card. The study received ethics approval from the university's Institutional Review Board.

Measures

Sexual victimization

SV was measured with a revised, 25-item version of the Sexual Experiences Scale (SES) (Koss et al. 1987, 2007). The SES assesses the victimization of unwanted sexual experiences since the age of 14 using behaviorally specific questions, such as “Someone put their penis, fingers, or other objects into my butt without my consent by: Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening.” Responses to these questions were answered on a scale from 0 (0 times) to 3 (3 or more times).

Intimate partner physical violence

IPPV was measured using the 8-item Relationship Violence Scale (Whitmire et al. 1999). Each item asks how often the participant has experienced a specific behavior from a partner since the age of 14. The behaviors include items such as “Pushed, slapped, or grabbed you.” Because SV was measured using the SES, one item assessing SV was excluded from the study. Participants indicated their responses on a scale from 1 (Never) to 5 (Very often).

Victimization follow-up questions

Sexual victimization

Participants who reported at least one SV experience since the age of 14 were asked to indicate if any of the perpetrators were strangers, acquaintances, intimate partners, or family members on a scale from 1 (None of them) to 4 (All of them). Using the same scale, participants also were asked if any of the incidents occurred since entering college.

Intimate partner physical violence

Participants who reported at least one instance of IPPV since the age of 14 were asked to indicate if any of the incidents occurred since entering college on a scale from 1 (None of them) to 4 (All of them).

Results

Power analysis

A power analysis conducted in G*Power (Faul et al. 2009) indicated that the sample size was sufficient (1−β = 0.84) to detect small- to medium-sized effects (Φ_c = 0.15, χ²₁, p < 0.05).

Sexual victimization

Overall rates

Of the 391 participants, 121 (30.9%) experienced SV at least once since the age of 14, wherein 105 (26.9%) experienced unwanted sexual contact, 70 (17.9%) experienced attempted unwanted sex (i.e., vaginal, oral, or anal), and 74 (18.9%) experienced completed unwanted sex (i.e., vaginal, oral, or anal). More than half of LGBTQ youth (26/46, 57%) reported at least one SV experience since the age of 14, which was significantly higher compared with non-LGBTQ youth (95/345, 27.5%), χ²₁ = 16.0, p < 0.001, Φ_c = 0.20. LGBTQ youth (mean 3.63, SD 5.9) also reported a greater number of SV experiences, since the age of 14, than non-LGBTQ youth (mean 1.46, SD 3.78, two-tailed t₅₀ = −2.43, p = 0.019). Furthermore, LGBTQ youth (8/46, 17%) reported higher rates of SV since entering college compared with non-LGBTQ youth (17/345, 4.9%), χ²₁ = 10.5, p = 0.001, Φ_c = 0.16.

Victimization experiences

It was found that LGBTQ youth experienced significantly higher prevalence of sexual contact, attempted sex, vaginal sex, oral sex, and anal sex than non-LGBTQ youth (Φ_c = 0.12–0.18). Additionally, LGBTQ youth experienced higher prevalence of many of the SV experiences by perpetrator tactics (significant differences had small- to medium-sized effects; Φ_c = 0.10–0.22. Table 2 presents the rates, coefficients, p-values, and effect sizes for all SV comparisons.

Table 2.

Sexual Victimization Experiences by Perpetrator Tactic Since the Age of 14

	LGBTQ (n = 46)	Non-LGBTQ (n = 345)	χ²₁	Φ_c
Sexual contact (total)	22 (47.8%)	83 (24.1%)	11.7^**	0.17
Lies/promises	17 (37.0%)	53 (15.4%)	12.9^***	0.18
Guilt/anger	12 (26.1%)	40 (11.6%)	7.4^**	0.14
Incapacitation	8 (17.4%)	34 (9.9%)	2.4	0.08
Physical force	14 (30.4%)	30 (8.7%)	19.2^***	0.22
Oral sex (total)	11 (23.9%)	45 (13.0%)	3.9^*	0.10
Lies/promises	7 (15.2%)	23 (6.7%)	4.2^*	0.10
Incapacitation	7 (15.2%)	19 (5.5%)	6.2^*	0.13
Threats to physically harm	6 (13.0%)	30 (8.7%)	0.9	0.05
Vaginal sex (total)	15 (36.6%)	39 (16.3%)	9.2^**	0.18
Lies/promises	7 (17.1%)	16 (6.7%)	5.0^*	0.13
Guilt/anger	6 (14.6%)	21 (8.8%)	1.4	0.07
Incapacitation	8 (19.5%)	20 (8.4%)	4.8^**	0.13
Physical force	10 (24.4%)	16 (6.7%)	13.0^***	0.22
Attempted sex (total)	16 (34.8%)	54 (15.7%)	10.1^**	0.16
Lies/promises	7 (15.2%)	30 (8.7%)	2.0	0.07
Guilt/anger	7 (15.2%)	29 (8.4%)	2.3	0.08
Incapacitation	8 (17.4%)	30 (8.7%)	3.5	0.10
Physical force	11 (23.9%)	18 (5.2%)	20.7^***	0.23
Anal sex (total)	6 (13.0%)	15 (4.3%)	6.0^*	0.12

Experiences are presented in the order that they were shown to participants. Experiences that were reported by less than five participants in either group are not presented due to confidentiality concerns and the violation of statistical assumptions. The vaginal sex category and subcategories only included participants who were assigned female at birth (n = 280). χ²₁ = Pearson's Chi-Square with one degree of freedom. Φ_c = Cramer's V.

p < 0.05.

p < 0.01.

***

p < 0.001.

Perpetrator tactics

LGBTQ youth reported more SV experiences involving lies/false promises, physical force, guilt and anger, and alcohol incapacitation than non-LGBTQ youth (Φ_c = 0.10–0.25). Table 3 presents the rates, coefficients, p-values, and effect sizes for all comparisons.

Table 3.

Perpetrator Tactics Used in Any Form of Sexual Victimization Since the Age of 14

	LGBTQ (n = 46)	Non-LGBTQ (n = 345)	χ²₁	Φ_c
Lies/promises	19 (41.3%)	64 (18.6%)	12.6^***	0.18
Physical force	17 (37.0%)	37 (10.7%)	23.5^***	0.25
Guilt/anger	15 (32.6%)	52 (15.1%)	8.8^**	0.15
Incapacitation	12 (26.1%)	50 (14.5%)	4.1^*	0.10
Threats to physically harm	8 (17.4%)	37 (10.7%)	1.8	0.07

The frequencies and percentages represent the total number of participants who experienced any type of sexual victimization, by each perpetrator tactic, relative to their respective subgroup (i.e., LGBTQ; non-LGBTQ). Experiences are presented from highest LGBTQ prevalence to lowest LGBTQ prevalence. χ²₁ = Pearson's Chi-Square with one degree of freedom. Φ_c = Cramer's V.

p < 0.05.

p < 0.01.

***

p < 0.001.

Relationship to perpetrator

The most common perpetrators of sexual violence, for both groups, were acquaintances and intimate partners. LGBTQ youth who experienced SV were no more likely than non-LGBTQ youth to be victimized by any of the four types of perpetrators. Table 4 presents the prevalence, Pearson's Chi-Square, and effect sizes for SV by the types of perpetrators.

Table 4.

Relationship to Perpetrator in Sexual Victimizations Since the Age of 14

	LGBTQ (n = 26)	Non-LGBTQ (n = 95)	χ²₁	Φ_c
At least once
Acquaintance	16 (61.5%)	46 (48.4%)	1.4	0.11
Intimate partner	11 (42.3%)	41 (43.2%)	0.0	0.01
Exclusively
Acquaintance	11 (42.3%)	23 (24.2%)	3.3	0.17
Intimate partner	9 (34.6%)	22 (23.2%)	1.4	0.11

Experiences are presented from highest to lowest prevalence. Experiences that were reported by less than five participants in either group are not presented due to confidentiality concerns and the violation of statistical assumptions. χ²₁ = Pearson's Chi-Square with one degree of freedom. Φ_c = Cramer's V.

Intimate partner physical violence

Overall rates

One-third (130/391, 33.2%) of the total sample experienced at least one instance of IPPV since the age of 14. Nearly half (22/46, 48%) of LGBTQ youth and one-third (108/345, 31.3%) of non-LGBTQ youth experienced at least one instance since the age of 14, χ²₁ = 5.0, p = 0.025, Φ_c = 0.11. In addition, LGBTQ youth (mean 1.30, SD 1.72) reported a greater number of IPPV experiences than non-LGBTQ youth (mean 0.75, SD 1.44, two-tailed t_53.8 = −2.03, p = 0.042). Furthermore, 8 (17%) LGBTQ youth and 42 (12.2%) non-LGBTQ youth experienced IPPV since entering college, χ²₁ = 1.0, p = 0.320.

Victimization experiences

Compared with non-LGBTQ, LGBTQ youth had significantly higher prevalence of three experiences: being pushed, shoved, or grabbed; instances in which a partner threw, smashed, hit, or kicked something; instances in which a partner threatened to hit or thrown something at them (Φ_c = 0.12–0.17). Table 5 presents the rates, coefficients, p-values, and effect sizes for all IPPV comparisons.

Table 5.

Intimate Partner Physical Violence Victimization Experiences Since the Age of 14

	LGBTQ (n = 46)	Non-LGBTQ (n = 345)	χ²₁	Φ_c
Pushed, shoved, or grabbed you	18 (39.1%)	62 (18.0%)	11.2^**	0.17
Threw, smashed, hit, or kicked something	17 (37.0%)	62 (18.0%)	9.1^**	0.15
Threatened to hit or throw something at you	13 (28.3%)	50 (14.5%)	5.7^*	0.12
Slapped you	6 (13.0%)	40 (11.6%)	0.1	0.01

Experiences are presented from highest LGBTQ prevalence to lowest LGBTQ prevalence. Experiences that were reported by less than five participants in either group are not presented due to confidentiality concerns and the violation of statistical assumptions. χ²₁ = Pearson's Chi-Square with one degree of freedom. Φ_c = Cramer's V.

p < 0.05.

p < 0.01.

Female subsample

Given the unequal proportions of youth assigned female at birth (i.e., between groups), identical analyses were conducted using an all-female subsample to determine if the unequal proportions were contributing to Type I error. Results indicated that LGBTQ youth who were assigned female at birth (26/41, 63%) reported higher rates of SV since the age of 14 compared with those who did not identify as LGBTQ (77/239, 32.2%), χ²₁ = 14.6, p < 0.001, Φ_c = 0.23. Similarly, the groups differed in rates of IPPV (χ²₁ = 7.7, p = 0.006, Φ_c = 0.17) with 23 (56%) LGBTQ and 80 (33.5%) non-LGBTQ youth assigned female at birth experiencing IPPV since the age of 14. Analyses comparing specific experiences between LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ youth assigned female at birth were nearly identical to those using the entire sample, with the exception that there were no differences in experiences of incapacitation and oral sex, which were observed in the full sample. Additionally, the differences in SV by particular perpetrators (i.e., acquaintance, intimate partner, stranger, relative) yielded the same pattern of results as the full sample.

Discussion

The present study compared the prevalence of SV and IPPV, since the age of 14, between LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ youth. Although preliminary, the results of this study extend prior research examining victimization among LGBTQ youth by utilizing measurements that allowed for a more comprehensive investigation into specific forms of victimization. Furthermore, the utilization of freshmen participants enhances the current understanding of victimization experiences of LGBTQ youth entering college. It is worth noting that the vast majority of victimization experiences for both groups occurred before entering college, signifying they transpired during adolescence. The results of this study, therefore, also give preliminary insight into the victimization experiences encountered by LGBTQ adolescents, for which there is a particular deficiency of research.

In general, SV and IPPV were more common experiences for LGBTQ youth entering college, compared with non-LGBTQ youth—a similar finding to prior research in adults and adolescents (e.g., Bender and Lauritsen 2021; Chen et al. 2020; Langenderfer-Magruder et al. 2016; Martin-Storey 2015; Saewyc et al. 2006). Results indicated that 57% of LGBTQ youth in the current sample experienced some form of SV, and 48% experienced IPPV, since the age of 14. These victimization rates were significantly higher, as were the average number of experiences, than those reported by non-LGBTQ youth (i.e., 28% and 31%, respectively). SV rates were considerably higher than those reported in prior research on lesbians, gay, and bisexual adolescents (Saewyc et al. 2006)—which may be due to differences in measurement—whereas IPPV rates were similar (Dank et al. 2014). Additionally, 17% of LGBTQ and 5% of non-LGBTQ youth were sexually victimized, whereas 17% of LGBTQ and 12% of non-LGBTQ youth experienced IPPV, since entering college. The observed college rates were lower than those reported in prior research on LGBTQ college students (Gillum 2017; Kammer-Kerwick et al. 2019), likely because only freshmen were included in the current sample.

LGBTQ youth in the current sample also experienced higher rates of nearly all forms of SV and IPPV, compared with non-LGBTQ youth. For SV, this included increased exposure to each type of victimization (i.e., sexual contact, oral sex, vaginal sex, anal sex, and attempted sex) and most of the perpetrator tactics (i.e., using lies or false promises, guilt or anger, drugs or alcohol, or physical force). There was a particular disparity in SV experiences involving physical force, wherein the effect was roughly moderate in size. This suggests that, not only do LGBTQ youth experience higher rates of victimization compared with non-LGBTQ youth, but also encounter more overtly violent forms. According to research on minority stress, severe aggression from strangers, family members, and acquaintances are external stressors that are often faced by LGBTQ individuals on the basis of their sexual or gender identity (Gordon and Meyer 2007; Wirtz et al. 2020). However, given that a substantial proportion of LGBTQ youth experienced victimization from an intimate partner, it is likely that internalized facets of minority stress (e.g., internalized homophobia) also contributed to the elevated rates of victimization (Edwards et al. 2015).

Sexual stigma exists in nearly all sectors of mainstream culture and institutions in the United States (Herek 2007) and, according to these results, high school and college students appear not to be protected within their respective social environments. In fact, homophobic behavior may even be elevated within school environments (Hong and Garbarino 2012). Qualitative research has explored narratives of homophobic school environments and reported that students—as well as teachers and administrators—explicitly contribute to hostile social environments through bullying, ridicule, and exclusionary policies or behaviors (Adelman and Woods 2006; Allen 2019, 2020). Alongside the results of the current study, this research highlights that LGBTQ students are commonly victimized, and that school environments often perpetuate this violence by stigmatizing LGBTQ identity and contributing to minority stress.

Implications

The results of this study have several practical implications. The results may inform high school administrations about the climate of high school campuses and the need to address SV and IPPV, which affects a large proportion of its LGBTQ students. High school administrators should consider implementing policy designed to mitigate homophobic school environments in exchange for hospitable settings in which LGBTQ students can thrive. For example, improvements in social/emotional learning, social support (e.g., inclusive social clubs), and staff bystander behaviors are promising avenues to reduce victimization among LGBTQ youth (Chaudoir et al. 2017; Espelage et al. 2019; Hong and Garbarino 2012). Furthermore, the high prevalence of victimization among LGBTQ youth suggests universities should provide trauma-informed resources for incoming freshmen, in addition to those offered to students who experience SV or IPPV during college. Universities also should be mindful of diversity and create resources that incorporate the needs of various social groups, including LGBTQ youth. The results also suggest that practitioners (e.g., clinicians; physicians), particularly those who work with youth and adolescents, should seek training in the treatment of SV and IPPV. Training programs that discuss issues faced by marginalized groups (e.g., minority stressors) are highly recommended. It also would be beneficial for practitioners to provide early treatment by screening for victimization experiences—as well as risk factors (e.g., substance use)—and directing patients to appropriate resources, all without blaming the victim and perpetuating stigma. Finally, the current study may be beneficial for researchers looking to understanding the increased rates of victimization found in LGBTQ college students and LGBTQ adults, as prior victimization is a risk factor for later victimization (Martin et al. 2011; Smith et al. 2003).

Limitations

The present study is not without limitations and should be considered preliminary. Because participants were asked to indicate if they identified as a member of the LGBTQ community, those who identified as LGBTQ were combined into one dichotomous variable. Therefore, we were unable to examine how victimization experiences vary between each sexual orientation and gender identity, and the extent to which specific sexual and gender minority groups were represented in the data. Similarly, we were unable to determine if the non-LGBTQ group consisted only of heterosexual individuals. It is possible that some of the respondents engage in same-sex sexual behavior, but do not identify as LGBTQ, thus assigning them to the non-LGBTQ group. It is also possible that some individuals who were included in the non-LGBTQ group did not identify as LGBTQ or heterosexual and, instead, identified with another sexual orientation or gender that was beyond the scope of the utilized measurement.

There also were some limitations in the identification of perpetrator characteristics. Although acquaintances and intimate partners most commonly victimized both groups, the sexual and gender identities of the perpetrators are unknown. It therefore cannot be assumed that all intimate partners of LGBTQ youth belong to the LGBTQ community. Because of this, it is unclear if the increased rates of SV were the result of lateral violence (i.e., perpetrated by other members of the LGBTQ community), nonlateral violence (i.e., perpetrated by non-LGBTQ people), or a combination of the two.

Finally, there were several limitations of the sample. The study primarily consisted of White youth assigned female at birth, making it difficult to make comparisons between diverse subgroups. For example, the small number of male youth in the LGBTQ group prevented comparisons based on sex between LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ youth. Additionally, some of the specific victimization experiences had a small number of observed frequencies (i.e., n < 5), resulting in an inability to test for statistical differences between LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ respondents.

Future Directions

Although the present study has several limitations, it is a step toward understanding the kinds of victimization experiences encountered by LGBTQ youth entering college. However, there is considerable research to still be conducted. First, future research should address the limitations of the current study. Researchers should examine how specific youth experiences of SV and IPPV vary between a greater range of sexual orientations, gender identities, and sexes. Additionally, larger sample sizes are necessary, particularly those that consist of male participants who are gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer. This may allow for examination into sex and gender differences, an appropriate number of cases for each form of victimization, and overall greater confidence in the findings. Studies also should consider an adolescent sample (e.g., high school seniors) to further explore experiences occurring during adolescence.

Future research also should seek to identify moderators and mediators in the relationship between LGBTQ identity and interpersonal victimization. This may be useful because the observed effect sizes were small to moderate in size, suggesting that other factors may help to fully explain the phenomenon. For example, minority stress theory suggests that societal norms, prejudicial attitudes, discriminatory cognitive processes, and internalized stigma are likely contributors to victimization among marginalized groups (Meyer 2003). Although some of these constructs have been studied in LGBTQ adults and college students (Longobardi and Badenes-Ribera 2017), more research is needed among youth and adolescents. Additionally, school-related variables (i.e., positive campus climate; campus readiness to address LGBTQ victimization) have marginal associations with intimate partner violence victimization (Edwards et al. 2016); further exploration of similar constructs could prove fruitful. Because such future research has the potential to enlighten points of intervention, it is an essential step toward improving the safety, health, and well-being of the LGBTQ community.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

This research was supported by funding from the Ravitz Foundation, granted to Truc-Vi Duong through Oakland University's William Beaumont School of Medicine.

References

Adelman

, Woods

. (2006). Identification without intervention: Transforming the anti-LGBTQ school climate. J Poverty. 10, 5–26.

Allen

. (2019). Bearing witness: Straight students talk about homophobia at school. Sex Educ. 19, 661–674.

Allen

. (2020). Reconceptualising homophobia: By leaving ‘those kids’ alone. Discourse Stud Cult Polit Educ. 41, 441–453.

Bender

, Lauritsen

. (2021). Violent victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations in the United States: Findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2017–2018. Am J Public Health. 111, 318–326.

Chaudoir

, Wang

, Pachankis

. (2017). What reduces sexual minority stress?. A review of the intervention “toolkit.” J Soc Issues. 73, 586–617.

Chen

, Walters

, Gilber

, et al. (2020). Sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence by sexual orientation, United States. Psychol Violence. 10, 110–119.

Dank

, Lachman

, Zweig

, et al. (2014). Dating violence experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. J Youth Adolesc. 43, 846–857.

Decker

, Littleton

, Edwards

. (2018). An updated review of the literature on LGBTQ+ intimate partner violence. Curr Sex Health Rep. 10, 265–272.

Edwards

, Littleton

, Sylaska

, et al. (2016). College campus community readiness to address intimate partner violence among LGBTQ+ young adults: A conceptual and empirical examination. Am J Community Psychol. 58, 16–26.

10.

Edwards

, Sylaska

. (2013). The perpetration of intimate partner violence among LGBTQ college youth: The role of minority stress. J Youth Adolesc. 42, 1721–1731.

11.

Edwards

, Sylaska

, Neal

. (2015). Intimate partner violence among sexual minority populations: A critical review of the literature and agenda for future research. Psychol Violence. 5, 112–121.

12.

Espelage

, Valido

, Hatchel

, et al. (2019). A literature review of protective factors associated with homophobic bullying and its consequences among children & adolescents. Aggress Violent Behav. 45, 98–110.

13.

Faul

, Erdfelder

, Buchner

, et al. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 41, 1149–1160.

14.

Gillum

. (2017). Adolescent dating violence experiences among sexual minority youth and implications for subsequent relationship quality. Child Adolesc Social Work J. 34, 137–145.

15.

Gordon

, Meyer

. (2007). Gender nonconformity as a target of prejudice, discrimination, and violence against LGB individuals. J LGBT Health Res. 3, 55–71.

16.

Herek

. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice. J Soc Issues. 63, 905–925.

17.

Hong

, Garbarino

. (2012). Risk and protective factors for homophobic bullying in schools: An application of the social–ecological framework. Educ Psychol Rev. 24, 271–285.

18.

Johnson

, Matthews

, Napper

. (2016). Sexual orientation and sexual assault victimization among US college students. Soc Sci J. 53, 174–183.

19.

Kammer-Kerwick

, Wang

, McClain

, et al. (2019). Sexual violence among gender and sexual minority college students: The risk and extent of victimization and related health and educational outcomes. J Interpers Violence. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1177/0886260519883866.

20.

Koss

, Abbey

, Campbell

, et al. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychol Women Q. 31, 357–370.

21.

Koss

, Gidycz

, Wisniewski

. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. J Consult Clin Psychol. 55, 162–170.

22.

Langenderfer-Magruder

, Whitfield

, Walls

, et al. (2016). Experiences of intimate partner violence and subsequent police reporting among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer adults in Colorado: Comparing rates of cisgender and transgender victimization. J Interpers Violence. 31, 855–871.

23.

Longobardi

, Badenes-Ribera

. (2017). Intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships and the role of sexual minority stressors: A systematic review of the past 10 years. J Child Fam Stud. 26, 2039–2049.

24.

Martin

, Fisher

, Warner

, et al. (2011). Women's sexual orientations and their experiences of sexual assault before and during university. Womens Health Issues. 21, 199–205.

25.

Martin-Storey

. (2015). Prevalence of dating violence among sexual minority youth: Variation across gender, sexual minority identity and gender of sexual partners. J Youth Adolesc. 44, 211–224.

26.

Meyer

. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychol Bull. 129, 674–697.

27.

Parrott

, Peterson

, Bakeman

. (2011). Determinants of aggression toward sexual minorities in a community sample. Psychol Violence. 1, 41–52.

28.

Peitzmeier

, Malik

, Kattari

, et al. (2020). Intimate partner violence in transgender populations: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and correlates. Am J Public Health. 110, e1–e14.

29.

Reuter

, Newcomb

, Whitton

, et al. (2017). Intimate partner violence victimization in LGBT young adults: Demographic differences and associations with health behaviors. Psychol Violence. 7, 101–109.

30.

Saewyc

, Skay

, Pettingell

, et al. (2006). Hazards of stigma: The sexual and physical abuse of gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents in the United States and Canada. Child Welfare. 85, 195–213.

31.

Smith

, White

, Holland

. (2003). A longitudinal perspective on dating violence among adolescent and college-age women. Am J Public Health. 93, 1104–1109.

32.

Whitmire

, Harlow

, Quina

, et al. (1999). Childhood Trauma and HIV. (Brunner/Mazel, Philadelphia, PA.)

33.

Whitton

, Dyar

, Mustanski

, et al. (2019a). Intimate partner violence experiences of sexual and gender minority adolescents and young adults assigned female at birth. Psychol Women Q. 43, 232–249.

34.

Whitton

, Newcomb

, Messinger

, et al. (2019b). A longitudinal study of IPV victimization among sexual minority youth. J Interpers Violence. 34, 912–945.

35.

Wirtz

, Poteat

, Malik

, et al. (2020). Gender-based violence against transgender people in the United States: A call for research and programming. Trauma Violence Abuse. 21, 227–241.