The Extent and Risk of Violent Victimization Among International College Students Enrolled in the United States: A Gendered Analysis

Abstract

Although the risk of being violently victimized in college has been established for college students in the United States in general, this risk has not been explored for international college students. Using data from the Fall 2012 National College Health Assessment Survey, the extent to which international college students experience violent victimization is assessed. In addition, the risk factors for violent victimization for international students are compared with those for domestic students. Finally, in multivariate analyses, whether being an international student influences risk of violent victimization is examined and whether this relationship is moderated by gender is considered. Findings indicate that international students in general have lower risk profiles, in that they reported lower rates of drug use, binge drinking, being a first-year undergraduate student, and having a disability. Multivariate analyses, however, revealed that being an international student reduces the odds of violent victimization among only females.

Keywords

cultural contexts victimization alcohol and drugs college students

Between 2000 and 2010, there was a 37% increase in enrollment at higher education institutions, from 15.3 million to 21 million students (Jordan, 2014). Along with this general increase in student enrollment, there was a 72% increase in the enrollment of students from countries outside of the United States (Haynie, 2014). More than 4% of college students (886,052) during 2013-2014 were international students, almost one third of whom hailed from China (Haynie, 2014). Although international students come to the United States seeking an education, they may not always have a positive experience, particularly if they are violently victimized while enrolled.

Despite the university campus being referred to as the “ivory tower” and seen as a safe haven for students, this image often runs counter to reality (Fisher, Sloan, Cullen, & Lu, 1998; Jordan, 2014). Linked to the college culture characterized by partying (Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport, & Castillo, 1995), college students are a vulnerable population and have a dual victimization risk (Jennings, Gover, & Pudrzynska, 2007), being at risk for victimization committed by outsiders as well as by individuals within the campus community (Jennings et al., 2007; Volkwein, Szelest, & Lizotte, 1995). Volkwein and colleagues (1995) examined trends in campus crime rates and found that the average college campus reports 46.8 crimes per 10,000 students. Fisher et al. (1998) reported that in a sample of 3,472 undergraduate and graduate students, 37% had experienced some type of victimization during the school year. In addition, 23.7% had been victimized at least once on campus, whereas 19% had been victimized at least once off campus (Fisher et al., 1998).

Research offers a common profile of the victimization of college students. The “typical” college student victim is male and non-Hispanic White (Baum & Klaus, 2005). Although the vast majority of crimes committed on university campuses are property crimes (Henson & Stone, 1999; Volkwein et al., 1995), college students face a real risk of experiencing violent victimization. Simple assault is the most frequent type of violent crime (Henson & Stone, 1999; Volkwein et al., 1995), accounting for 63% of violent victimizations against college students (Baum & Klaus, 2005). However, it is not known whether international students are more or less at risk of being victimized than other college students. Collectively, international students’ college experience is different from that of domestic college students’ in ways that potentially shape their vulnerability to victimization. The relationship between being an international student and violent (non-sexual) victimization is examined in the current study. Furthermore, because male college students are more at risk than females and because international male and female students may have different college experiences, a gendered approach is taken.

College Culture and Victimization Risk

The reasons that colleges may not be pristine, “ivory towers” but instead places conducive to victimization are many. College students often arrive on campus as newly minted adults, with newfound freedom and an excess of unstructured time. Many college students make decisions for themselves for the first time and do so with relatively little adult supervision. They often have noticeable routines—thus would-be offenders may be able to predict when a student’s dorm room or apartment is unattended or when one may be walking to or from class. College students are also, on average, of the age when frontal lobe development is not fully complete (De Luca et al., 2003; Johnson, Blum, & Giedd, 2009), thus executive cognitive functioning, which includes planning, inhibition, and abstract reasoning, may not be as well established in this population. These elements, along with the college culture that is centered on partying, create an environment where college students are at risk for victimization.

Alcohol consumption is a major part of college culture (Wechsler et al., 1995), and drinking, especially heavily, has been linked to risk of harm including assault (Abbey, 2002). Binge drinking in college social situations is often perceived as normative behavior (Larimer, Lydum, Anderson, & Turner, 1999). Alcohol alters perception and judgment, decreases reaction time, impairs decision-making capabilities, and delays the recognition of danger (Abbey, 2002; Monks, Tomaka, Palacios, & Thompson, 2010). Therefore, alcohol use not only exposes students but also increases their attractiveness as a target and decreases an individual’s personal guardianship. Other college activities such as going out at night, frequenting bars and parties, and deviant behaviors including recreational drug use can all expose individuals to risky situations that may increase their probability of victimization (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2000).

The activities of college students provide ample opportunities for them to become victims of crime. College students, however, vary in their circumstances and behaviors. Certain characteristics of college students may place them at higher or lower risk for victimization based on how these characteristics influence their activities and exposure to crime. The existing literature suggests that the college experiences of international students are vastly different from the college experiences of domestic students. Therefore, there may be differences in routine activities between these two distinct demographic groups that may contribute to their differential risks of victimization.

College Experiences of International Students

International students have unique college experiences compared with those of domestic college students. They face fundamentally different obstacles such as culture shock (Forbes-Mewett & Nyland, 2008), homesickness (Poyrazli & Lopez, 2007), parental and cultural pressure to succeed (Forbes-Mewett & Nyland, 2008; Misra & Castillo, 2004; Mori, 2000), social isolation (Forbes-Mewett & Nyland, 2008; Mori, 2000), language proficiency issues (Mori, 2000; Poyrazli & Lopez, 2007), underutilization of available services (Forbes-Mewett & Nyland, 2008; Mori, 2000), and discrimination (Lee & Rice, 2007; Poyrazli & Lopez, 2007). These distinctive sources of stress often cause international students to report negative statements about their college experiences (Lee & Rice, 2007).

Lee and Rice (2007) conducted a qualitative study consisting of interviews with 24 international students from 15 different countries. The following excerpt describes one example of the struggle international students consistently face:

This man was frustrated with wanting to know more about the culture around him and wanting to “mingle” but was surprised by the “‘incredible” amount of partying and drinking involved in undergraduate life and was shocked with the open sexuality of American culture. He feels excluded from friendships and gaining the type of experience he hoped for because he doesn’t partake in the usual activities of his peers. (p. 397)

Many of the stressors international students grapple with are interrelated. Cultural differences and language proficiency issues often go hand in hand with social isolation and discrimination. For example, the language barrier that is often faced by international students diminishes their ability to understand lectures, take notes, and ask questions in class (Mori, 2000). In turn, international students often report feelings of discomfort and inferiority due to being ignored during lessons and excluded by other students (Lee & Rice, 2007). This divide is further evident by international students reporting that they are often left out of study groups and not invited to social events (Lee & Rice, 2007). It is common for international students to struggle with barriers in making friends across cultures (Forbes-Mewett & Nyland, 2008), and their social support networks are often confined to their own national groups (Mori, 2000).

Sex Differences in the College Experience Among International Students

The college experience may not only differ for international students compared with domestic students, but differences may also occur between male and female international students. Role expectations, socialization, and structural opportunities are fundamentally different between males and females, which result in differences in daily activities (Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo, 1978; Meier & Miethe, 1993). Gendered role expectations and opportunities affect “where and with whom time is spent, the degree of supervision in daily activities, the likelihood of having contact with strangers, and exposure to risky and dangerous public places” (Meier & Miethe, 1993, p. 468). These gendered pathways to exposure may be present for international students as well.

Research on sex differences in international students is sparse; however, the existing evidence suggests that male and female international students do, in fact, experience college differently from one another. Sex differences in the perceptions and needs of incoming undergraduate international students have been documented (Manese, Sedlacek, & Leong, 1988). Female international undergraduates have more negative self-perceptions than male international undergraduates. Specifically, females expected themselves to have a harder time adjusting to life at the university, were more discouraged when things did not work out, indicated that they saw themselves as less likely to act on strong beliefs, and were less likely to think that they would be viewed as leaders compared with their male peers (Manese et al., 1988). Female international undergraduates also reported more needs than their male counterparts. Not only did they report a greater need to talk to a counselor about career plans, female students also indicated they needed to become more comfortable in speaking up in class and taking better notes compared with male students (Manese et al., 1988).

Further evidence exists that highlight the differences between male and female international students. In a study of Japanese international students, males were significantly more likely to seek out American students as companions for social activities; however, both sexes spent at least 82% of their social time with other Japanese students (Trice & Elliot, 1993). Furthermore, female international graduate students have been found to be significantly more depressed, more anxious, and more likely to report poor relationships with faculty members compared with male international graduate students (Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992). A foundation of research has been established regarding the adjustment issues of international students and how these issues may be different for males and females; however, little research exists examining the victimization of international students (Jordan, 2014). International students may not have the same prevalence rates of victimization as domestic students. In fact, Buhi, Clayton, and Surrency (2009) found that American students reported being victims of stalking more than international students (21.4% compared with 7.5%). If international students experience college differently from domestic students and are socially isolated from their peers, international students may not engage in the same daily or recreational activities as domestic students. Therefore, they may differ from domestic students in terms of proximity and exposure, suitability, and guardianship. Furthermore, these differences in risk for victimization may be gendered, given the gender differences in the college experience among international students.

Current Study

The current study explores differences in prevalence rates between domestic and international college students and whether the risk profiles of these two student groups differ. It also examines whether being an international student influences the odds of being victimized and whether this risk is gendered. In doing so, data from the American College Health Association–National College Health Assessment II (ACHA-NCHA) are used to first identify international students’ relative risk for being victimized. Second, to conduct a gendered analysis, the relationship between student status (international vs. domestic) and victimization is examined for males and females separately.

Method

Data

Data for this project were derived from the ACHA-NCHA. The ACHA-NCHA is a national survey of college students that was first begun in 2000. Given in the spring and fall of each year, it was revised in the fall of 2008. For the current study, data from the fall administration of 2012 are used. In that administration, 54 postsecondary institutions self-selected to participate, and 29,280 students completed surveys. Those institutions located in the United States that surveyed their entire student body or that used a random sampling technique are included in the analysis. Thus, the original final data set includes 28,237 students from 51 schools. All but four of the schools used a web survey; the mean student response proportion was 20% (American College Health Association, 2013). The full sample was predominantly single (52.8%) and female (67.2%). Almost one in five college students in the sample experienced a violent victimization. International students made up 8.6% of the sample. A majority of participants (68.4%) did not engage in binge drinking, although 35.1% reported drug use. Approximately 24% of the sample consisted of first-year undergraduate students and a little over 10% had a disability. Missing data were deleted list-wise in the current study, resulting in a final sample of 26,102 students.

The ACHA-NCHA data are particularly useful for studying risk behaviors and consequences as they are designed to assess students’ health habits, behaviors, and perceptions. In fact, it is the largest comprehensive data set available on college student health and has been used to provide those working in higher education information about the well-being and behavior of college students (American College Health Association, 2013).

Measures

Dependent variable

Violent victimization

Students were asked about two types of violent victimizations they could have experienced during the previous 12 months: non-sexual physical assault and verbal threat. Specifically, students were asked “Were you physically assaulted (do not include sexual assault)” and “were you verbally threatened?” If respondents indicated that they had experienced at least one of either of these types of victimizations, they were coded as 1, and they were coded as 0 if they had not experienced either of these types of violent victimization.

Independent variables

International student

The key independent variable of interest is whether or not a student is an international student. To assess this, respondents were asked whether they are an international student. Those who responded “yes” were coded as 1, and those who responded “no” were coded as 0.

Risky lifestyle/routine activities measures

Risky lifestyles and routine activities have been shown to be related to violent victimization (Cass, 2007; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002; Rocca, Verde, & Gatti, 2012; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2001). As such, we included measures of risky lifestyle/routine activities to account for this relationship.

Drug use

A measure of drug use was included. Students were asked to indicate on how many days they used marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, other amphetamines, sedatives, hallucinogens, anabolic steroids, inhalants, ecstasy or other club drugs, and other illegal drugs within the last 30 days. Original responses were recoded to reflect those who indicated they had used any of these drugs at least once during the last 30 days (coded as 1) and those who indicated no drug use over the last 30 days (coded as 0).

Binge drinking

A measure of binge drinking was included to capture high-risk drinking episodes. Respondents were asked “Over the last 2 weeks, how many times have you had five or more drinks of alcohol at a sitting?” Original responses ranged from “N/A, do not drink” to “10 or more times.” Because the measure was highly skewed, it was recoded into a five-category categorical variable, with Category 0 representing those who either do not drink at all or who reported no binge drinking. Category 1 represents binge drinking 1 time, Category 2 represents binge drinking twice, Category 3 represents binge drinking 3 times, and Category 4 represents binge drinking 4 or more times. Category 0 is the reference group in the multivariate analysis.

Relationship status

Individuals who are single may be less likely to have capable guardians and be more likely to engage in risky lifestyles specific to the college culture (Cass, 2007; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2001). To account for this relationship, a measure of relationship status is included. If an individual is in a relationship, they are coded as 1, and if they are single, they are coded as 0.

Disability status

Disabled persons are at risk for victimization (Bones, 2013; Hahn, McCormick, Silverman, Robinson, & Koenen, 2014; McGee, 2014), and this risk may be tied to their inability to defend themselves and/or being seen as vulnerable targets (Bones, 2013). The measure of disability used reflects whether a student has one of the following: deafness/hearing loss, mobility/dexterity disability, partial sightedness/blindness, speech or language disorder, or other disability (coded as 1) or none of these conditions (coded as 0).

Demographic controls

Two demographic controls were also included in the analysis. A measure was included to reflect year in school in which respondents are enrolled. First-year undergraduates were coded as 1, and other students were coded as 0. In addition, a measure of sex was included with females coded as 0 and males coded as 1. The data included a measure of race, but the categories are based on how race tends to be socially constructed in the United States, which is likely not shared internationally. For example, “Black” and “White” may not have the same meanings in African and Asian countries. Because of this validity concern, the decision was made to exclude race as a control.¹

Analytical Plan

Analysis proceeded in several steps. In the first step, bivariate analyses were conducted to examine whether international students differ from non-international students in their violent victimization risk. This analysis was also conducted to examine whether the risk profiles of these student groups differed. These analyses were conducted for males and females separately, to examine the differences in violent victimization risk and levels of risk factors for male and female international versus non-international students. In the next step, multivariate logistic regression models were tested to examine whether being an international student is associated with risk for violent victimization, net of controls for other potential risk factors, and demographic controls. Split-gender models were also run to examine whether gender moderates the effect of being an international student on violent victimization risk. In all multivariate logistic regression models, robust standard errors were used to account for the clustering of students within colleges and universities (Wooldridge, 2009).

Results

Descriptive and initial bivariate statistics are presented in Table 1. As can be seen, international and non-international students differ in terms of their risk of being victimized, with 19.4% of non-international students being violently victimized during the previous 12 months as compared with 17.3% of international students. These students also differ in terms of their risk profiles. Compared with international students, non-international students were more likely to engage in drug use (35.9% vs. 28.3%), to binge drink (32% vs. 28.1%), and to have a disability (10.5% vs. 8.8%). However, international students were more likely to be single (55.7% vs. 52.8%). Furthermore, non-international students were more likely to be first-year undergraduates (24.6% vs. 21.5%). A greater percentage of international students were male compared with non-international students (41.1% vs. 32%).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics, Full Sample and by International Student.

	Full Sample	International Student	Non-International Student	χ²
	% (n)	% (n)	% (n)	χ²
Violent victimization	19.27 (5,393)	17.32 (403)	19.35 (4,825)	5.67*
International student	8.55 (2,344)	—	—	—
Drug use	35.21 (9,889)	28.32 (663)	35.94 (8,991)	54.46***
Binge drinking				17.25**
None/do not drink	68.35 (19,094)	71.88 (1,679)	68.05 (16,959)	—
1 time	13.42 (3,750)	11.17 (261)	13.64 (3,398)	—
2 times	7.81 (2,182)	7.06 (165)	7.92 (1,973)	—
3 times	4.01 (1,120)	3.60 (84)	4.04 (1,006)	—
4 or more times	6.41 (1,790)	6.29 (147)	6.36 (1,585)	—
Relationship status (1 = single)	52.81 (14,556)	55.71 (1,302)	52.61 (13,154)	8.24**
Disability (1 = yes)	10.34 (2,777)	8.77 (198)	10.47 (2,543)	6.43*
First-year undergraduate	23.78 (6,714)	21.46 (503)	24.56 (6,155)	11.19**
Gender (1 = male)	32.84 (9,054)	41.13 (953)	32.03 (7,964)	79.68***

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

To further explore the risk of violent victimization between international and non-international students, each variable was examined across gender for international students and for non-international students. Table 2 presents the cross-tabulation and chi-square analysis results for male and female international students compared with male and female non-international students. Male international students are significantly more likely (21.8%) to be victimized than female international students (13.8%), but significantly less likely to be victimized than their non-international male counterparts (26.2%). Male non-international students are then more likely to be victimized than female non-international students (16%), and female international students are less likely to be victimized than their female non-international counterparts.

Table 2.

Bivariate Analysis Examining Independent Variables by Gender.

	International		χ^2a	χ^2b	χ^2c	Non-International		χ^2d
	Male	Female				Male	Female
	% (n)	% (n)				% (n)	% (n)
Violent victimization	21.80 (206)	13.80 (187)	25.14***	8.72**	4.75**	26.24 (2,080)	16.05 (2,699)	359.19***
Drug use	25.95^† (247)	29.64 (404)	3.79	70.31***	11.00**	39.93 (3,174)	34.06 (5,746)	81.09***
Binge drinking			46.93***	19.62**	12.10**			669.76***
None/do not drink	66.00 (627)	76.34 (1,039)				58.89 (4,659)	72.35 (12,170)
1 time	11.05 (105)	11.39 (155)				14.33 (1,134)	13.33 (2,243)
2 times	9.58 (91)	5.44 (74)				10.23 (809)	6.86 (1,154)
3 times	5.05 (48)	2.50 (34)				5.84 (462)	3.19 (537)
4 or more times	8.32 (79)	4.34 (59)				6.33 (1,565)	4.27 (718)
Relationship status (1 = single)	60.02 (569)	53.04 (723)	11.04***	1.73	4.25**	57.79 (4,591)	50.14 (8,455)	126.74***
Disability (1 = yes)	9.47 (87)	7.75 (102)	2.06	3.08	6.84**	11.40 (881)	9.98 (1,641)	11.30***
First-year Undergraduate	19.31 (184)	22.80 (311)	4.08*	11.53**	2.42	24.26 (1,932)	24.68 (4,172)	.53

Comparison of male and female international students.

Comparison of male international and non-international students.

Comparison of female international and non-international students.

Comparison of male non-international and female non-international students.

†

p < .052. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p ≤ .001.

In terms of risk profiles, male international students were less likely to report drug use (26%) than male non-international students (39.9%). They were also less likely to report drug use compared with female international students (29.6%, but not quite at the .05 level of significance, p = .052). Female international students were, however, less likely to report drug use than female non-international students (34.1%). Male international students were more likely to report binge drinking four or more times over the last two weeks than any other group; however, in general, females reported lower binge drinking than males, and international students had lower binge drinking in other categories. Among international students, males were significantly more likely to be single (60% male vs. 53% female) and females were significantly more likely to be first-year undergraduates (22.8% female vs. 19.3% male). Among non-international students, males were significantly more likely to be single (57.8% male vs. 50.1% female) and to have a disability (11.4% male vs. 10% female).

Table 3 presents results from the multivariate logistic regression model for the full sample, for males only, and for females only.² Beginning with the total sample, being an international student was not significantly related to violent victimization. However, three other variables—using drugs, binge drinking (at least 2 times, compared with none or not drinking at all), and having a disability— significantly increased the odds of violent victimization. Demographic variables were also significant. Being a first-year undergraduate and being male were both related to an increase in the odds of violent victimization.³

Table 3.

Logistic Regressions, Full Sample and by Gender.

	Full Sample			Male			Female
	OR	95% CI		OR	95% CI		OR	95% CI
	OR	LL	UL	OR	LL	UL	OR	LL	UL
International student	0.882	0.760	1.025	.912	.716	1.166	0.860*	0.744	0.993
Drug use	1.764***	1.627	1.912	1.724***	1.523	1.951	1.802***	1.615	2.010
Binge drinking (none or do not drink as referent)
1 time	1.167**	1.058	1.288	1.356***	1.166	1.576	1.067	.940	1.212
2 times	1.567***	1.404	1.749	1.866***	1.593	2.186	1.385***	1.201	1.598
3 times	1.691***	1.484	1.926	1.876***	1.584	2.222	1.571***	1.273	1.940
4 or more times	2.248***	1.989	2.539	2.905***	2.493	3.385	1.692***	1.437	1.994
Relationship status (1 = single)	1.065	0.982	1.155	1.194**	1.059	1.346	.999	0.900	1.108
Disability (1 = yes)	1.770***	1.615	1.941	1.396***	1.163	1.675	2.069***	1.853	2.311
First-year undergraduate	1.237***	1.116	1.373	1.314***	1.156	1.507	1.194**	1.051	1.357
Gender	1.655***	1.501	1.825
Log pseudolikelihood	−12,071.829			−4,607.357			−7,437.205
Wald χ²	1,562.85			741.39			557.35
Pseudo R²	.0505			.0532			.0308

Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Next, results among males are similar to the full model in that being an international student is not significantly related to violent victimization. This time, all risk profile variables, including being single, significantly increased the odds of victimization. Binge drinking even 1 time increased the odds compared with none or not drinking at all. Being a first-year undergraduate also increased the odds of victimization.

Among females only, however, being an international student significantly reduced the odds of violent victimization. In fact, female international students faced odds of victimization that were 14% less than female non-international students. Among the risk profile variables, relationship status returned to insignificance, but using drugs, binge drinking (at least two times, compared to none or not drinking at all), and having a disability significantly increased the odds of victimization. Being a first-year undergraduate also increased the odds of victimization.

Discussion

The current study suggests that international college students are at lower risk of violent (non-sexual) victimization compared with their domestic counterparts. Bivariate analyses showed that international students were less likely to report violent victimization than non-international students, similar to Buhi and associates’ (2009) findings from their study of stalking victimization, but also that they were less likely to experience some major risk factors: drug use, binge drinking, having a disability, and being a first-year undergraduate. However, international students were more likely to be single and male, which might increase their risk. Also, although international male students generally binge drank less than male non-international students, they were actually more likely than male non-international students to binge drink 4 or more times specifically. Bivariate analyses also showed that the risk profiles of male compared with female international students largely mirrored those of male compared with female non-international students, except that men were less likely than women to be first-year undergraduates among international students only. In general, it appears that the international students in the sample have a risk profile that is “safer” compared with domestic students, which could explain the lower rate of violent victimization among international students.

Multivariate findings show that drug use, binge drinking 2 or more times, having a disability, and being a first-year undergraduate student are consistent predictors of violent victimization, for both men and women. Most notable, however, is that being an international student was unrelated to victimization for men. For women, however, international student status significantly reduced the odds of victimization. Analyses in the split models identified that for females, being an international student significantly reduced the odds of victimization controlling for risk factors and demographic factors previously shown to be related to college student victimization. This finding is striking in that it indicates this particular group of college students is potentially more protected from violence than other students, which is instructive. What it also shows is that this group of students may be isolated from the typical college experience that produces victimization. Although this may have the consequence of reducing victimization, it may have the corollary consequence of also leaving these students feeling dissatisfied with college, feeling lonely, not connecting with their classmates or professors, and thus not developing important social and professional networks. As noted earlier, past research suggests that compared with male international students, female international students are less likely to seek out American students as companions for social activities (Trice & Elliot, 1993) and more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and poor relationships with faculty (Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992). Thus, the finding that they are less involved in risk behaviors may have broader implications for the female international college student experience.

Furthermore, risk behaviors and demographics were accounted for in the multivariate models, and being an international student remained significant for females, reflecting that there is likely something about the culture or norms that female international students bring with them to college or that is exacerbated in college that influences victimization risk. In support of this possibility, Forbes-Mewett, McCulloch, and Nyland (2015) asserted that female students may have more difficulties navigating the newfound independence of college living given the often increased levels of guardianship to which they are subject prior to college. Furthermore, female international students may experience high levels of guilt and shame resulting from the culture conflict present between the norms and expectations of the college and those of their native country (Constantine, Kindaichi, Okazaki, Gainor, & Baden, 2005). This culture conflict may be particularly pronounced among subsets of female international students. In traditional Asian Indian culture, women are expected to adhere to strict gender roles and attend to a large well-defined set of family responsibilities. The degree to which Asian Indian culture expects daughters to be protected and controlled is likely to be considered “overprotection” by people in the United States (Varghese & Rae Jenkins, 2009). Thus, it is possible that female international students may be experiencing emotional pressure that leads to a decreased risk of victimization that is unaccounted for in the current study’s models. These cultural differences need to be further explored in future research.

Nevertheless, the current study’s overall results are consistent with past studies linking violent victimization to a general risk profile, especially alcohol and drug abuse (Cass, 2007; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002; Rocca et al., 2012; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2001), although some of the variables were inconsistent predictors. Being single increased the risk for men only. The finding that single male students are at higher risk is consistent with past research showing that married persons are at lower risk of victimization (Cass, 2007; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2001). However, “single” in the context of college students, and how it is measured in the current study, usually means that one is not in a serious romantic relationship, not that one is simply unmarried. Still, being in a steady non-marital relationship may have nearly the same risk-reducing impact upon lifestyle as being married. However, being in a relationship did not significantly reduce the risk for females. Perhaps this is because women are not at high risk for violent, non-sexual victimization to begin with, so being in a relationship has little impact upon the riskiness of their lifestyles. Or it may be that their romantic partner is actually perpetrating violence against them, thus being in a relationship does not reduce risk. Men’s lifestyles on the other hand may tend to be more receptive to the curtailing effects of steady relationships. For example, time spent with romantic partners may detract from the time men spend in dangerous situations or with aggressive male peer groups.

Finally, disability increased the risk of victimization for both male and female students, consistent with past research (Bones, 2013; Hahn et al., 2014; McGee, 2014). Disability has been linked with increased vulnerability, thus making persons with disabilities more likely to be targets than others (Bones, 2013). It is possible, however, that students with disabilities are less likely to come to the United States for college, or some of the diagnoses used in the United States may not be present in their countries of origin. Although there was a small portion of students in the sample with a disability who were international students (n = 198), any specialized analysis with this group of students was not possible given the small number. Future research should consider studying this specialized group to see whether they are in fact different in their victimization risk.

The results regarding demographic variables are also fairly consistent with past research. Being a first-year undergraduate increased the odds of violent victimization, which is consistent with research on sexual victimization (e.g., Flack et al., 2008; Parks, Romosz, Bradizza, & Ya-Ping, 2008). The transition from parental control to more autonomous living and lack of awareness of dangers in college life may increase the chances that a male or a female student will be assaulted. Finally, males were more likely than females to be victimized. This is not surprising as college men are more likely to drink problematically and be non-sexually assaulted than college women (O’Malley & Johnston, 2002).

Results support programs and services aimed at victimization risk reduction among college students, such as those warning against the consequences of alcohol and drug use, services for persons with disabilities, and special attention to first-year students. International students’ lower rate of violent victimization does not suggest that they are in less need of these program and services. Any tendency on the part of international students to engage in less risky behavior, for example, should be reinforced. Also, as previously noted, this tendency may be a reflection of not fully engaging in the college experience, even in those activities that are prosocial. Insomuch as this is the case, international students should be encouraged to engage in activities that tie them to college to make sure they have the academic, social, and professional resources to be successful in school. Also important, the difference in international and domestic students’ victimization rates was not drastic (2% difference), and the rate among international students (17.3%) although lower is not trivial. Thus, there is room for improvement in international student as well as domestic student risk reduction.

The current study is largely limited by the retrospective self-report data used for analyses. The accuracy of the data depends upon respondents’ abilities to recollect incidents and activities such as victimization and risky behavior. It is possible that respondents improperly recollected events during the specified time frame. Future research utilizing designs such as diaries would help with the problem of recall, although they may require smaller samples. The advantage of using retrospective self-report is that the survey produced a national sample large enough for making comparisons across male and female international and non-international students. However, the data are not from a national random sample. Random or total sampling procedures were used to gain participants at each institution but institutions self-selected to participate (American College Health Association, 2013). Furthermore, 2-year institutions were not well represented as only three participated in the study. Results therefore cannot be safely generalized to the entire population of students attending college in the United States. Finally, the data are cross-sectional. Thus, causal direction between victimization and its correlates could not be established. However, the purpose of the study was to test whether rates between international and non-international students were different and explore possibilities for such a difference. Future research utilizing longitudinal and experimental designs is needed to test whether risky behaviors precede victimization.

An additional limitation to the study is a lack of inclusion of valid measures of race and ethnicity that are likely reflective of both international and non-international students. This omission is important as past research has found that racial and ethnic minorities in the United States are at heightened risk of violent victimization (Hart, 2003; Lauritsen & Heimer, 2009; Like-Haislip & Warren, 2011). Unfortunately, the data available for the current study contained only a U.S.-based measure of race that is a self-report, and it did not contain a separate measure of ethnicity. (Preliminary analyses including the available race variable showed that it did not impact the significance of the variables in the final models.) Future research should include empirically based constructs that would sufficiently detect racial and ethnic self-perceptions common to both international and domestic students—to allow for comparisons of the two.

Despite its limitations, the current study is informative in that it shows that international college students, particularly females, in the United States may be at lower risk of violent non-sexual victimization compared with their domestic college student counterparts. Findings also suggest that the lower risk is due in part to less risky routine activities or lifestyles on the part of international students, although risk profiles between male and female international students likely differ and it is not risk alone that accounts for female international students’ risk. More research, however, in this area is needed.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The opinions, findings, and conclusions presented in this article are those of the authors and are in no way meant to represent the corporate opinions, views, or policies of the American College Health Association (ACHA). ACHA does not warrant nor assume any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented in this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Leah E. Daigle is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice in the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University. Her most recent research has centered on repeat sexual victimization of college women and the development and continuation of victimization across the life course. She is co-author of Criminals in the Making: Criminality Across the Life Course (2nd ed.) and Unsafe in the Ivory Tower: The Sexual Victimization of College Women, which was awarded the 2011 Outstanding Book Award by the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and author of Victimology: A Text/Reader and Victimology: The Essentials. Her research has also appeared in peer-reviewed journals including Justice Quarterly, Victims & Offenders, The Journal of Quantitative Criminology, and The Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

Chrystina Y. Hoffman is a PhD student in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology in the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University. She received her master’s degree in criminal justice at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her main areas of research include bullying victimization and sexual victimization, with a specific focus on sexual victimization and revictimization of college women.

Lee M. Johnson is an associate professor of criminology at the University of West Georgia. He conducts research in the areas of juvenile delinquency, juvenile justice, and criminal victimization. He has published articles on these subjects as well as corrections and policing. He is also the author of Professional Misconduct Against Juveniles in Correctional Treatment Settings (Routledge) and the editor of Experiencing Corrections: From Practitioner to Professor (Sage).

References

Abbey

(2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Suppl. No. 14, 118-128.

American College Health Association. (2013). American College Health Association–National College Health Assessment II: Reference group executive summary fall 2012. Hanover, MD: Author.

Baum

Klaus

(2005). Violent victimization of college students, 1995-2002. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs02.pdf

Bones

P. C.

(2013). Perceptions of vulnerability: A target characteristics approach to disability, gender, and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 34, 727-750.

Buhi

E. R.

Clayton

Surrency

H. H.

(2009). Stalking victimization among college women and subsequent help-seeking behaviors. Journal of American College Health, 57, 419-426.

Cass

A. I.

(2007). Routine activities and sexual assault: An analysis of individual- and school-level factors. Violence and Victims, 22, 350-366.

Constantine

M. G.

Kindaichi

Okazaki

Gainor

K. A.

Baden

A. L.

(2005). A qualitative investigation of the cultural adjustment experiences of Asian international college women. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11, 162-175.

De Luca

C. R.

Wood

S. J.

Anderson

Buchanan

J. A.

Proffitt

T. M.

Mahony

Pantelis

(2003). Normative data from the CANTAB. I: Development of executive function over the lifespan. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25, 242-254.

Fisher

B. S.

Sloan

J. J.

Cullen

F. T.

(1998). Crime in the ivory tower: The level and sources of student victimization. Criminology, 36, 671-710.

10.

Flack

W. F.

Caron

M. L.

Leinen

S. J.

Breitenbach

K. G.

Barber

A. M.

Brown

E. N.

Stein

H. C.

(2008). “The red zone” temporal risk for unwanted sex among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1177-1196.

11.

Forbes-Mewett

McCulloch

Nyland

(2015). International students and crime. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

12.

Forbes-Mewett

Nyland

(2008). Cultural diversity, relocation, and the security of international students at an internationalised university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12, 181-203.

13.

Hahn

J. W.

McCormick

M. C.

Silverman

J. G.

Robinson

E. B.

Koenen

K. C.

(2014). Examining the impact of disability status on intimate partner violence victimization in a population sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 3063-3085.

14.

Hart

T. C.

(2003). Violent victimization of college students (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, NCJ 196143). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

15.

Haynie

(2014, November 17). Number of international college students continues to climb. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2014/11/17/number-of-international-college-students-continues-to-climb

16.

Henson

V. A.

Stone

W. E.

(1999). Campus crime: A victimization study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 295-307.

17.

Hindelang

M. J.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Garofalo

(1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

18.

Jennings

W. G.

Gover

A. R.

Pudrzynska

(2007). Are institutions of higher learning safe? A descriptive study of campus safety issues and self-reported campus victimization among male and female college students. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18, 191-208.

19.

Johnson

S. B.

Blum

R. W.

Giedd

J. N.

(2009). Adolescent maturity and the brain: The promise and pitfalls of neuroscience research in adolescent health policy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 216-221.

20.

Jordan

C. E.

(2014). The safety of women on college campuses: Implications of evolving paradigms in postsecondary education. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 143-148.

21.

Larimer

M. E.

Lydum

A. R.

Anderson

B. K.

Turner

A. P.

(1999). Male and female recipients of unwanted sexual contact in a college student sample: Prevalence rates, alcohol use, and depression symptoms. Sex Roles, 40, 295-308.

22.

Lauritsen

J. L.

Heimer

(2009). Gender and violent victimization, 1973-2005 (Document No. 229133). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

23.

Lee

J. J.

Rice

(2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53, 381-409.

24.

Like-Haislip

T. Z.

Warren

P. Y.

(2011). Routine inequality: Violent victimization at the intersection of race and ethnicity among females. Violence and Victims, 26, 88-102.

25.

Mallinckrodt

Leong

F. T.

(1992). International graduate students, stress, and social support. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 71-78.

26.

Manese

J. E.

Sedlacek

W. E.

Leong

F. T.

(1988). Needs and perceptions of female and male international undergraduate students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 16, 24-29.

27.

McGee

M. G.

(2014). Lost in the margins? Intersections between disability and other non-dominant statuses with regard to peer victimization. Journal of School Violence, 13, 396-421.

28.

Meier

R. F.

Miethe

T. D.

(1993). Understanding theories of criminal victimization. Crime and Justice, 17, 459-499.

29.

Misra

Castillo

L. G.

(2004). Academic stress among college students: Comparison of American and international students. International Journal of Stress Management, 11, 132-148.

30.

Monks

S. M.

Tomaka

Palacios

Thompson

S. E.

(2010). Sexual victimization in female and male college students: Examining the roles of alcohol use, alcohol expectancies, and sexual sensation seeking. Substance Use & Misuse, 45, 2258-2280.

31.

Mori

S. C.

(2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 137-144.

32.

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

(2000). Comparing the lifestyles of victims, offenders, and victim-offenders: A routine activity theory assessment of similarities and differences for criminal incident participants. Sociological Focus, 33, 339-362.

33.

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

(2002). Sexual assault of college women: A feminist interpretation of a routine activities analysis. Criminal Justice Review, 27, 89-123.

34.

O’Malley

P. M.

Johnston

L. D.

(2002). Epidemiology of alcohol and other drug use among American college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Suppl. No. 14, 23-39.

35.

Parks

K. A.

Romosz

A. M.

Bradizza

C. M.

Ya-Ping

(2008). A dangerous transition: Women’s drinking and related victimization from high school to the first year at college. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 69, 65-74.

36.

Poyrazli

Lopez

M. D.

(2007). An exploratory study of perceived discrimination and homesickness: A comparison of international students and American students. The Journal of Psychology, 141, 263-280.

37.

Rocca

Verde

Gatti

(2012). Alcohol use, delinquency and victimization among young people in Europe: Results of an international multicentre study (ISRD-2). European Psychiatry, 27, 1.

38.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E.

(2001). Lifestyle factors associated with the sexual assault of men: A routine activity theory analysis. Journal of Men’s Studies, 9, 153-182.

39.

Trice

A. D.

Elliot

(1993). Japanese students in America: II. college friendship patterns. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 20, 262-264.

40.

Varghese

Rae Jenkins

(2009). Parental overprotection, cultural value conflict, and psychological adaptation among Asian Indian Women in America. Sex Roles, 61, 235-251.

41.

Volkwein

J. F.

Szelest

B. P.

Lizotte

A. J.

(1995). The relationship of campus crime to campus and student characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 36, 647-670.

42.

Wechsler

Dowdall

G. W.

Davenport

Castillo

(1995). Correlates of college student binge drinking. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 921-926.

43.

Wooldridge

(2009). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (4th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.