Academic Correlates of Unwanted Sexual Contact,Intercourse,Stalking,and Intimate Partner Violence: An Understudied but Important Consequence for College Students

Abstract

Sexual assault, partner abuse, and stalking are major problems on college campuses. Past research has demonstrated a host of physiological and psychological outcomes associated with victimization; however, there has been little research conducted on the potential academic outcomes associated with victimization. The purpose of this study was to measure the relation between academic outcomes and experiences of sexual violence, intimate partner violence, and stalking victimization among college students. A sample of 6,482 undergraduate students currently enrolled at one of eight universities in New England was surveyed using items from the subscales of the College Persistence Questionnaire (Academic Efficacy, Collegiate Stress, Institutional Commitment, and Scholastic Conscientiousness). All four types of victimization were associated with significant differences on academic outcomes after controlling for sex and year in school, with victimized students reporting lower academic efficacy, higher college-related stress, lower institutional commitment, and lower scholastic conscientiousness. Polyvictimization was also significantly correlated with outcomes, with the greater number of types of victimization experienced by students being associated with more negative academic outcomes. Implications for future research and campus response were discussed.

Keywords

sexual assault rape relationship abuse stalking college academics well-being

Data obtained through the 2013 National College Health Assessment show that attending college can be a particularly stressful time in any young person’s life. Approximately one third of U.S. college students reported feeling depressed, and almost half of students reported having anxiety within the past year that disrupted their ability to function at school. Of students seeking counseling services, 48.7% reported mental health concerns and 32.9% used medication for mental health issues in the 2012-2013 school year (Novotney, 2014). With so many students struggling with mental health problems, academic failure and lowered retention rates become an obvious concern for universities. Examining what events contribute to the development or exacerbation of psychological distress and academic outcomes in college is perhaps the first step in better supporting students and facilitating their success. One key factor that may exacerbate this stressful transition is the experience of unwanted sexual experiences, relationship abuse, or stalking.

Nationally, sexual assault, partner abuse, and stalking are major problems on college campuses, with women being the most likely to be victimized (Belknap & Sharma, 2014; Buhi, Clayton, & Hepler Surrency, 2009; Dardis, Dixon, Edwards, & Turchik, 2015; Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2009; Nabors, 2010). Approximately 19% to 25% of women will experience attempted or complete rape while enrolled in college (Banyard, Ward, Cohn, Moorehead, & Walsh, 2007; Fisher et al., 2000; Krebs et al., 2009; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), whereas approximately 20% to 50% of students will experience intimate partner violence during their college years (Nabors, 2010). Furthermore, 13% to 20% of college women report being stalked while enrolled (Buhi et al., 2009; Fisher et al., 2000). As victimization on campuses gains attention in the United States, most of the focus has been on what role schools should play in adjudicating these cases and their effectiveness in dealing with the cases. When it comes to discussions about victims, we most often hear about mental health outcomes and the services that can be provided to assist victims with symptomology rather than academic outcomes. Victimization has long been associated with a host of physiological and psychological outcomes such as posttraumatic stress disorder, major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and substance abuse (Black & Breiding, 2008; Bonomi et al., 2009; Breitenbecher, 2006; Kilpatrick et al., 2003; Ullman & Nadjowski, 2009; Ullman, Nadjowski, & Filipas, 2009). However, academic correlates of victimization are rarely examined in this literature.

Researchers have found that sexually victimized college students are more likely to drop classes and change residences than nonvictimized students (Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2007). Furthermore, a recent study by Jordan, Combs, and Smith (2014) found that sexual assault prior to entering college and victimization during college were associated with lower GPAs among a sample of undergraduate women at several different time points early in their college careers. Likewise, LeBlanc, Barling, and Turner (2014) found that experiencing psychological aggression by an intimate partner negatively predicted college women’s academic performance. These studies suggest that more research on the effects of victimization on academics is necessary. Expanding the research in this area to include other measures of academic correlates in addition to other victimization types such as physical intimate partner violence and stalking is sorely needed. However, the current literature has rarely explored the potential relationship between victimization and academics in college populations.

The Current Study

The current study aimed to add to the literature by examining the relation between experiences of sexual violence, intimate partner violence, and stalking victimization and four dimensions of academic adjustment and persistence: college stress, scholarly conscientiousness, commitment to their university, and feelings of efficacy as a student. We hypothesized that students who experienced any form of victimization during the school year would report greater levels of stress, lower scholastic consciousness, lower institutional commitment, and lower academic efficacy than students who did not experience any form of victimization. In addition, students who experienced a great number of types of victimization would report more negative outcomes than others.

Method

Participants

Participants consisted of 6,482 undergraduate students (men = 2,207; women = 4,275) currently enrolled at one of eight universities in New England (public = 5, private = 3). Participants were fairly evenly spread across year of school (first-year students = 27.6%, sophomores = 23.3%, juniors = 24.0%, seniors = 25.0%), and their ages ranged from 18 to 24, with a mean age of 19.99 years (SD = 1.40 years). The racial identity of participants was quite homogeneous, with 92.6% identifying as Caucasian (Black/African American = 0.9%, American Indian/Native Alaskan = 0.4%, Asian = 2.2%, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander = 0.1%, Hispanic/Latino = 1.3%, two or more races = 2.4%). The lack of racial diversity in our sample is generally consistent with universities in this geographical area; however, Caucasian students were slightly overrepresented in our sample, based on institutional data comparisons using paired sample t tests across the eight campuses, t(7) = 8.70, p < .001. Women were also significantly overrepresented across all university subsamples—t(7) = 8.65, p < .001—with men and racial minorities slightly underrepresented (e.g., 0.08% vs. 1.6%). There were no significant differences between the research sample and school populations on mean age.

Participants reported being enrolled at their current institution for an average of 4.52 semesters and had a mean grade point average of 3.21 (SD = 0.49). The majority of participants currently lived on campus (residence halls = 53.6%, on-campus apartments = 12.7%, Greek-life housing = 2.1%), whereas the remainder lived in off-campus apartments (24.7%) or with their families (6.7%). Most participants came from families where at least one parent (mother = 80.6%, father = 76.3%) had attended some college; only 10% of participants were first-generation students. The participant sample was largely heterosexual (82.1%), and roughly half of participants surveyed (53.5%) were currently in a relationship.

Measures

Academic outcomes

Academic outcomes were measured with the following subscales of the College Persistence Questionnaire (Davidson, Beck, & Milligan, 2009): Academic Efficacy, Collegiate Stress, Institutional Commitment, and Scholastic Conscientiousness.

Academic Efficacy

Academic Efficacy assessed participants’ confidence in their academic abilities using five items such as “How confident are you that you can get the grades you want?” For each item, participants responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 = very confident to 5 = very unconfident. For the current sample, scores ranged from 1 to 5 and were coded to range from −2 to 2 following author scoring instructions (M = 0.80, SD = 0.62, α =.76).

Collegiate Stress

Collegiate Stress assessed participants’ levels of college-related stress using four items such as “How often do you feel overwhelmed by the academic workload here?” For each item, participants responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 = very often to 5 = very rarely. For the current sample, scores ranged from 1 to 5 and were coded to range from −2 to 2 following author scoring instructions (e = −0.28, SD = 0.70, α = .76).

Institutional Commitment

Institutional Commitment assessed participants’ commitment to staying at their current university using four items such as “How likely is it that you will reenroll here next semester?” For each item, participants responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 = likely to 5 = very unlikely. For the current sample, scores ranged from 1 to 5 and were coded to range from −2 to 2 following author scoring instructions (M = 1.31, SD = 0.78, α = .75).

Scholastic Conscientiousness

Scholastic Conscientiousness assessed participants’ diligence in meeting academic commitments and responsibilities using four items such as “How often do you arrive late for classes, meetings, and other college events?” For each item, participants responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 = very often to 5 = very rarely. For the current sample, scores ranged from 1 to 5 and were coded to range from −2 to 2 following author scoring instructions (M = 1.09, SD = 0.66, α = .64).

Victimization scales

Intimate partner violence

Intimate partner violence victimization was measured using 16 items from the Safe Dates Physical Violence Victimization Scale (Foshee et al., 1998). Participants were asked to list how many times during the academic year, a casual, steady, or serious dating or intimate partner had done the following to them (i.e., “scratched me,” “tried to choke me”). For the current analyses, a dichotomous variable was created, with 1 scored if any of the intimate partner violence items were endorsed and 0 if none of the items were endorsed. For the current sample, 20.51% reported having experienced intimate partner violence.

Unwanted sexual contact

Unwanted sexual contact was measured with one item that had been used in previous research (Banyard et al., 2007; Ward, Chapman, Cohn, White, & Williams, 1991). Participants were asked the following: “During this academic year, how many times has someone had sexual contact with you when you didn’t want to?” Sexual contact was defined as “attempting or actually kissing, fondling, or touching someone in a sexual intimate way, excluding sexual intercourse.” For the current analyses, a dichotomous variable was created, with 1 scored if a frequency of unwanted sexual contact equal to or greater than 1 was chosen and 0 if a frequency of 0 was selected. For the current sample, 12.06% reported having experienced unwanted sexual contact during the previous 6 months of the current academic year.

Unwanted sexual intercourse

Unwanted sexual intercourse was measured similarly to unwanted sexual contact (Banyard et al., 2007; Ward et al., 1991). Participants were asked the following: “During this academic year, how many times have you had sexual intercourse with someone when you didn’t want to?” Sexual intercourse was defined as “any form of sexual penetration including vaginal intercourse, oral sex, and anal intercourse.” For the current analyses, a dichotomous variable was created, with 1 scored if a frequency of unwanted sexual intercourse equal to or greater than 1 was chosen and 0 if a frequency of 0 was selected. For the current sample, 4.39% reported having experienced unwanted sexual intercourse in the past 6 months.

Stalking

Stalking was measured with 14 items adapted from the National Violence Against Women Survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998) and the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (Black et al., 2011). Participants were asked to list how many times during the academic year, someone had done the following to them (i.e., “sent you unwanted e-mails,” “followed or spied on you”). For the current analyses, a dichotomous variable was created, with 1 scored if any of the stalking items were endorsed and 0 if none of the items were endorsed. For the current sample, 38.86% reported having experienced stalking in the previous 6 months.

Victimization variety

Given the high rates of co-occurrence of forms of violence, we were also interested in creating a measure of the number of types of victimization that an individual experienced. This was created by summing the dichotomous variables for stalking, intimate partner violence, unwanted sexual contact, and unwanted sexual intercourse. Scores ranged from 0 to 4. The largest percentage of the sample scored 0 (48%), 34.6% experienced one type, 12.5% experienced two types, 3.6% experienced three types, and 1.6% experienced all four types.

Procedure

Data for this study were collected as part of a panel study that began in 1988 at one institution. This iteration of the study was unique in that it moved beyond the researchers’ home institution to include a convenience sample of seven additional colleges and universities in New England. Invitations were sent out to 16 higher education campuses in New England. As a prerequisite to the study, all research conducted was approved by the Institutional Review Boards located at each of the participating universities.

Participants were recruited via an e-mail that was sent to undergraduate students by each respective institution. To maximize convenience for participating institutions, institutions were given the option of e-mailing the entire undergraduate student body or collecting a randomly generated subsample. Although every institution in the study chose to e-mail their entire student body, participation in the study was always voluntary, and informed consent was administered. The response rate for participation across schools ranged from 1.5% to 20%, with a mean response rate of 11%. The e-mail content was identical at each school, and asked students to consider participating in a study on relationship conflicts and sexual experiences. An incentive was offered in the form of participation in a lottery, with a chance to win one of several $100 Amazon.com gift cards. The e-mail included information on the researchers’ home institution as well as the administrators at their own university.

The majority of participants completed surveys online. However, 2,092 undergraduate students at the researchers’ home institution were also recruited from approximately 110 randomly selected classes (to make data comparable with a survey done 6 years prior and permit testing of the impact of survey method on results, analyses described elsewhere). A variety of different course levels and subjects were selected; however, graduate-level courses and those with class sizes of less than 20 students were excluded from the recruitment process. Once classes were identified, professors of those classes were sent a letter asking them if a paper version of the survey could be completed in their class. Upon agreement of the professor, a research assistant scheduled and administered the survey in the classroom. Participants who had already completed the survey online were ineligible to take the paper and pencil version as the two versions were identical.

Data Analysis

A MANOVA controlling for gender and year in school (fifth-year students were recoded as seniors)¹ was used to examine whether mean scores differed between victims and nonvictims of unwanted sexual contact, unwanted sexual intercourse, relationship abuse, and stalking on four academic outcome subscales (academic efficacy, collegiate stress, institutional commitment, and scholastic conscientiousness) during a college academic school year. All types of victimization were entered into the analysis to examine variance explained by each type of victimization while controlling for the others. Given that forms of violence co-occur more than not, it was not possible to examine academic outcomes in relation to victims who experienced exclusively one type of violence. Next, analyses were performed to examine the association between victimization variety (a sum of the number of different types of victimization experienced) and outcomes using Pearson correlations and a MANOVA comparing each of the five groups of victim variety on academic outcomes.

Results

Means for each type of victimization and outcome are presented in Table 1. There were significant main effects for the two covariates sex—F(4, 5806) = 8.14, p < .001—and year in school—F(16, 23236) = 2.56, p = .001—and a significant interaction between sex and year in school—F(12, 17424) = 1.96, p < .05. Overall, there were significant main effects for three of the four forms of victimization across the four academic outcomes: unwanted intercourse, F(4, 5806) = 4.82, p = .001, Wilks’ λ = .997, and a small partial η² of .003; relationship abuse, F(4, 5806) = 24.03, p < .001, Wilks’ λ = .984 and a small partial η² of .016; and stalking, F(4, 5806) = 20.05, p < .001, Wilks’ λ = .986, partial η² of .014. The main effect for unwanted contact was not significant. There was a significant interaction between sex and unwanted contact—F(4, 5806) = 2.80, p < .05—and between sex and relationship abuse—F(4, 5806) = 4.86, p = .001—and a three way interaction between sex, year in school, and unwanted contact—F(12, 17424) = 1.92, p < .05—but no other significant interactions.

Table 1.

Academic Outcome Descriptives Across Victimization Types.

Victimization Type (N)	Academic Efficacy	Collegiate Stress	Institutional Commitment	Scholastic Conscientiousness
Intimate partner violence
No (4,830)	0.75 (.65)	−0.69 (.64)	1.33 (.78)	0.99 (.78)
Yes (1,247)	0.63 (.69)	−0.75 (.66)	1.19 (.80)	0.65 (.84)
Unwanted contact
No (5,213)	0.74 (.66)	−0.69 (.65)	1.32 (.77)	0.95 (.79)
Yes (716)	0.62 (.65)	−0.82 (.59)	1.19 (.86)	0.79 (.84)
Unwanted intercourse
No (5,644)	0.74 (.65)	−0.69 (.64)	1.32 (.78)	0.94 (.79)
Yes (260)	0.51 (.77)	−0.88 (.56)	1.08 (.88)	0.59 (.90)
Stalking
No (3,729)	0.77 (.65)	−0.65 (.66)	1.37 (.75)	0.99 (.78)
Yes (2,364)	0.66 (.67)	−0.79 (.60)	1.20 (.83)	0.82 (.80)

We calculated univariate Fs for the difference in the means between those that did and did not experience each of the three forms of victimization for which we found significant main effects. Unwanted sexual intercourse was significant for collegiate stress—F(1) = 4.77, p < .05— institutional commitment—F(1) = 4.64, p < .05—and scholastic conscientiousness—F(1) = 15.43, p < .001. Participants who experienced unwanted sexual intercourse reported lower academic efficacy, higher collegiate stress, lower institutional commitment, and lower scholastic conscientiousness than participants who did not experience unwanted sexual contact when controlling for other forms of victimization.

Relationship abuse was significant for all four academic outcomes. Students who experienced relationship abuse also reported lower academic efficacy—F(1) = 15.57, p < .001—greater collegiate stress—F(1) = 4.77, p < .01—lower institutional commitment—F(1) = 9.45, p < .01—and lower scholastic conscientiousness—F(1) = 93.88, p < .001.

Stalking was also significant for all four academic outcomes. Victims of stalking reported lower academic efficacy—F(1) = 14.42, p < .001—greater collegiate stress—F(1) = 32.49, p < .001—lower institutional commitment—F(1) = 38.71, p < .001—and lower scholastic conscientiousness—F(1) = 37.96, p < .001.

Academic Outcomes and Polyvictimization

Furthermore, given the important recent attention to the co-occurrence of different types of victimization (Edwards, Probst, Rodenhizer-Stampfli, Gidycz, & Tansill, 2014), a composite index of victimization types called “victimization variety” (scores ranged from 0 to 4) was created. Number of types of victimization were significantly correlated with outcomes—greater number of types of victimization were associated with more negative academic outcomes, including academic efficacy (r = −.11, p < .001), collegiate stress (r = −.14, p < .001), institutional commitment (r = −.12, p < .001), and scholastic conscientiousness (r = −.18, p < .001). To more carefully investigate these patterns, we computed a second MANOVA with the four academic outcomes and victim variety categories as the independent variable. Bonferroni post hoc tests were computed.

Overall, there was a significant main effect of victim variety, F(16, 18621.17) = 19.38, p < .001; Wilks’ λ = .95, partial η² = .01. These significant main effects were found for all four academic outcomes: academic efficacy, F(4) = 23.50, p < .001; college stress, F(4) = 21.26, p < .001; institutional commitment, F(4) = 23.64 p < .001; and scholastic conscientiousness, F(4) = 49.10, p < .001. Post hoc Bonferroni tests, presented in Table 2, indicated significant differences between all groups and participants who had no victimizations for all four academic outcomes. There were also significant differences between participants who reported four types of victimization and all other groups for academic efficacy. Participants with one, two, and three types were not significantly different from one another on academic efficacy. For college stress, one and two victimization types were not significantly different, but one was significantly different from four. Four had worse outcomes than none or one but not different from two or three. For institutional commitment, both none and one looked better than the other groups. Victims with two types looked better than victims with four types but not different from those with three types. Three and four types did not differ on this outcome. Finally, for scholastic conscientiousness, nonvictims scored better than all other groups. Victims with one type scored worse than nonvictims but significantly better than all other victim variety groups. Victims with two, three, and four types did not look significantly different from one another on this outcome.

Table 2.

Academic Outcomes and Victim Variety: Descriptive Means and Post Hoc Tests.

Victim Variety Score	Zero	One	Two	Three	Four
Academic Efficacy	0.79 (.64)^a	0.70 (.66)^b	0.66 (.68)^b	0.61 (.69)^b	0.19 (.72)^c
Collegiate Stress	−0.64 (.66)^a	−0.74(.62)^b	−0.78 (.61)^b,d	−0.92 (.59)^c	−0.96 (.59)^c,d
Institutional Commitment	1.38 (.75)^a	1.28 (.77)^b	1.17 (.88)^c	1.09 (.82)^c,d	0.87 (.91)^d
Scholastic Conscientiousness	1.05 (.76)^a	0.85 (.80)^b	0.74 (.84)^c	0.58 (.86)^c	0.51 (.89)^c

Note. Superscripts indicate groups that are not significantly different from one another.

Discussion

Three types of victimization (unwanted sexual intercourse, relationship abuse, and stalking) were associated with significant differences on academic outcomes after controlling for sex and year in school and other forms of victimization. Victimization of any kind was associated at the univariate level with lower academic efficacy, higher stress, lower institutional commitment, and lower scholastic conscientiousness. Polyvictimization was also significantly correlated with each of the academic outcomes, with the greater number of types of victimization experienced by students associated with the less desirable outcomes. These findings fit with the large literature on the negative consequences of victimization for college students (Belknap & Sharma, 2014). This study extends these findings to include negative academic related outcomes rather than just focusing on mental and physical health, and thus builds on the work by Jordan et al. (2014). Such outcomes are an important concern to college campus administrators who seek to retain students and ensure their successful progress toward graduation.

Past research on victimization has most often focused on mental health consequences of victimization (Black & Breiding, 2008; Bonomi et al., 2009; Breitenbecher, 2006; Kilpatrick et al., 2003; Ullman & Nadjowski, 2009; Ullman et al., 2009). The results of the current study were consistent with previous research on youth and teen victimization and studies on college campuses that are beginning to emerge (Gilbert et al., 2009; Jordan et al., 2014; LeBlanc et al., 2014; Lipson, 2001). College students reporting victimization experiences struggled to be engaged in their academics and were less committed to staying in school. These results establish a potentially important association between victimization (in particular unwanted sexual intercourse, relationship abuse, and stalking) and academic outcomes in a college population. This study confirms that the effects of experiencing victimization go beyond symptomology and have real, measurable consequences on students’ futures.

In contrast to previous research, after controlling for other forms of victimization, unwanted sexual contact was not significantly related to academic outcomes. There are a number of reasons for this. First, the measure used to assess this construct was quite broad and likely included a range of experiences, some of which may have been perceived as more intrusive and problematic than others. Furthermore, it may be that some of the negative effects of unwanted sexual contact are related to the fact that it is often linked to the experience of other forms of victimization. Finally, the current study focused on academic outcomes. Unwanted sexual contact may be more strongly linked to other outcomes not measured in the current study. As more campuses collect data on sexual assault, relationship abuse, and stalking, through campus climate surveys, measures of academic progress and outcomes should be included.

Furthermore, the current study showed that experiences of different types of victimization often co-occur, a finding consistent with work by Hamby and Grych’s (2013) “web of violence” and other work on polyvictimization (Finkelhor, Shattuck, Turner, Ormrod, & Hamby, 2011; Hamby, Finkelhor, & Turner, 2012). As victims report an increasing array of types of victimization, whether those types are at the hands of the same or different perpetrators, the level of negative impact increases. There seemed to be three categories of victim variety, with victims who experience all four types performing much worse than all other groups. Participants with one, two, or three types of victimization looked worse than nonvictims but were not significantly different from one another. This finding is similar to results from studies of mental health consequences of victimization, which show the highest levels of distress among those with multiple types of victimization (Edwards et al., 2014; Finkelhor et al., 2011). This highlights the need to build bridges between research and practice (both prevention and response) that address sexual assault and unwanted sexual contact, physical and psychological relationship abuse, and stalking. Currently, there is far more research on sexual assault on college campuses than stalking or intimate partner violence (Edwards & Gidycz, 2014). The current study highlights the need for campus-based victimization research to assess various forms of exposure to interpersonal violence if schools are to truly appreciate the scope of adversity burden students experience, and design services to adequately respond to and prevent these incidents.

Implications

The victimization literature has been focused on psychological and physical consequences and has, with few exceptions (Jordan et al., 2014; LeBlanc et al., 2014), ignored academic consequences. This study is one of the first to demonstrate the importance of academic consequences for victims, regardless of whether they are victims of just one kind of victimization (unwanted sexual contact, unwanted sexual intercourse, relationship abuse, and stalking) or multiple kinds of victimization. Future researchers should not ignore this important consequence of victimization of college students.

The association between poorer academic outcomes and victimization speaks to the need for college administrators to offer a wider range of services to victimized students. Although the implementation of new policies and the recent focus on sexual assault on college campuses has convinced many colleges that victim services are needed, rarely is the scope of services discussed. Offering medical and psychological services to victims is a logical first step to developing any response to violence program; however, the results of this study suggest that academic services may be just as important. Any administrator concerned with college retention rates should be especially interested in the results of this study as victimized students express a lowered commitment to staying enrolled. Research on academic outcomes could be used to develop programs that could encourage victimized students to stay in school and support their success in attaining their academic goals. Supportive services are important for all victims, but some may need to be particularly tailored to those students with the greatest adversity burden—those who experienced four different types of interpersonal violence.

Universities are increasingly being asked to attend to the problems of sexual assault, domestic and dating violence, and stalking on campuses, and faculty and staff are being asked to play a role in responding adequately to victims who come forward (notalone.gov). Understanding the classroom and educational attainment consequences of victimization may help promote engagement of college administrators and faculty, subcommunities on campus who have a vital leadership role to play in prevention and response but groups who have historically not played a central part. Findings like those from the current study can be a good starting point for discussion between academic and student affairs sides of campuses to bring diverse campus members together to address these complex problems.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

One limitation of this study was that it only asked students to report victimization experiences that occurred during the current academic year, and to reduce skewness of data, dichotomous categories for each type of victimization were used. However, this is consistent with other research on polyvictimization in which it is defined as the experience of a number of different types of victimization rather than the extent of any one type (Finkelhor et al., 2011). In addition, the study did not capture any prior victimization that may have occurred in previous school years or before attending college. Thus, the researchers were unable to control for past victimization or look at any potential effects of multiple experiences of the same victimization type over time. Researchers have found in previous research that revictimization, in the form of experiencing one type of violence at multiple time points, is associated with more negative outcomes (Breitenbecher, 2006). Future research should ask additional questions about previous victimization experiences and examine other aspects of victimization including frequency and degree of intensity.

Another limitation of the current study was that the data were cross sectional and academic outcomes prior to victimization were not captured. Although the current study showed correlations at one time point, it might be helpful to conduct a pre/post design study that looks at any changes that occur in academic efficacy, collegiate stress, institutional commitment, and scholastic conscientiousness following victimization. A longitudinal study would help us better understand the magnitude of the effects on academic outcomes and may also permit tracking of students who choose to withdraw from campuses. Such designs should also include variables related to psychological distress to better examine nuances in the relationship between victimization and academic outcomes. Perhaps psychological distress or other variables mediate this relationship. Future researchers should also follow the lead of studies like Jordan et al.’s (2014) and include outcome measures that assess academic achievement as well as persistence. The academic measures used in the current study may also benefit from further development, as evidenced by some moderate Cronbach’s alphas.

Participants were drawn from campuses where White students are overrepresented. Thus, the sample for this study cannot be generalized to a broad spectrum of college student experiences. As an exploratory study of this issue, it suggests an important research question that should next be examined in samples of college students that include more racial and ethnic diversity and greater income variation, and represent both residential and commuter campuses. Furthermore, the generalizability of this study should also be critically considered in light of the sampling method utilized. Purposeful sampling was not used. Although all undergraduate students at each respective university were sent an invitation to participate in the study, participation was entirely voluntary, and there was a somewhat broad range of response rates across schools. There may be unknown factors that influenced whether or not individual students decided to participate. Although minority students were only slightly underrepresented as a whole across schools, there was one school in particular where only 0.9% of participants identified as African American, despite the fact that their student body was composed of 13% self-identifying African Americans at the time. It is unclear what accounted for this singular larger discrepancy in representation; however, future studies should explore this issue further and consider sampling methods that might combat it.

Last, participants in the current study were not asked about services that they received or would have liked to have received to improve academic outcomes. Future researchers should better explore solutions to the problems that have been outlined in the current study. Victims may be able to offer insights into the best ways to support academics and enrollment following an experience of sexual assault, partner abuse, or stalking that college administrators and researchers who have not experienced victimization might not otherwise consider.

Footnotes

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

Victoria L. Banyard, PhD, is a professor in the psychology department and part of Prevention Innovations, a research center at the University of New Hampshire (UNH). Her program of research focuses on resilience among survivors of interpersonal violence and prevention of sexual assault and relationship abuse using a bystander framework.

Jennifer M. Demers, MA, is currently pursuing a PhD in social psychology at UNH. She is part of the Violence Response & Resilience research team, a lab with decades of experience evaluating prevention programs, conducting community needs assessments related to sexual assault, and investigating consequences of interpersonal violence.

Ellen S. Cohn, PhD, is a professor in the psychology department and the founding coordinator of the justice studies program at UNH. As a social psychologist, she studies legal socialization and rape and dating violence attitudes and behaviors.

Katie M. Edwards, PhD, is an assistant professor of psychology and women’s studies and faculty affiliate of Prevention Innovations and the Carsey School of Public Policy at UNH. Her interdisciplinary program of research focuses broadly on better understanding the causes and consequences of interpersonal violence.

Mary M. Moynihan, PhD, is an affiliate associate professor of women’s studies, an affiliate of the justice studies program, and co-coordinator of Prevention Innovations. She is a cocreator and evaluator of the violence prevention program Bringing in the Bystander and social marketing campaign Know Your Power.

Wendy A. Walsh, PhD, is a research assistant professor of sociology at the Crimes Against Children Research Center at UNH. Her research includes studies on enhancing community systems and criminal justice response to child abuse and enhancing family support programs for families in rural New Hampshire.

Sally K. Ward, PhD, is a professor emerita of sociology and senior faculty advisor at the Carsey Institute at UNH. She recently completed a 2-year term as interim dean at UNH Manchester. Her research interests include inequality in America, social policy and change, and unwanted sexual experiences.

References

Banyard

V. L.

Ward

Cohn

E. S.

Moorehead

Walsh

(2007). Unwanted sexual contact on campus: A comparison of women’s and men’s experiences. Violence and Victims, 22, 52-70. doi:10.1891/088667007780482865

Belknap

Sharma

(2014). The significant frequency and impact of stealth (nonviolent) gender-based abuse among college women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 181-190. doi:10.1177/1524838014520725

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

…Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 25.

Black

M. C.

Breiding

M. J.

(2008). Adverse health conditions and health risk behaviors associated with intimate partner violence. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 57, 113-117. doi:10.1037/e410562008-001

Bonomi

A. E.

Anderson

M. L.

Reid

R. J.

Rivara

F. P.

Carrell

Thompson

R. S.

(2009). Medical and psychosocial diagnoses in women with a history of intimate partner violence. Archives of Internal Medicine, 169, 1692-1697. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.292

Breitenbecher

K. H.

(2006). The relationship among self-blame, psychological distress, and sexual victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 579-611. doi:10.1177/0886260506286842

Buhi

E. R.

Clayton

Hepler Surrency

(2009). Stalking victimization among college women and subsequent help-seeking behaviors. Journal of American College Health, 57, 419-425. doi:10.3200/jach.57.4.419-426

Dardis

C. M.

Dixon

K. J.

Edwards

K. M.

Turchik

J. A.

(2015). An examination of the factors related to dating violence perpetration among young men and women and associated theoretical explanations: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16, 136-152. doi:10.1177/1524838013517559

Davidson

W. B.

Beck

H. P.

Milligan

(2009). The College Persistence Questionnaire: Development and validation of an instrument that predicts student attrition. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 373-390. doi: 10.1353/csd.0.0079

10.

Edwards

K. M.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2014). Stalking and psychosocial distress following the termination of an abusive dating relationship: A prospective analysis. Violence Against Women, 2011, 1383-1397. doi:10.1177/1077801214552911

11.

Edwards

K. M.

Probst

D. R.

Rodenhizer-Stampfli

K. A.

Gidycz

C. A.

Tansill

E. C.

(2014). Multiplicity of child maltreatment and biopsychosocial outcomes in young adulthood: The moderating role of resiliency characteristics among female survivors. Child Maltreatment, 19, 188-198. doi:10.1177/1077559514543354

12.

Finkelhor

Shattuck

Turner

H. A.

Ormrod

Hamby

S. L.

(2011). Polyvictimization in developmental context. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 4, 291-300. doi:10.1080/19361521.2011.610432

13.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2000). The sexual victimization of college women: Findings from two national-level studies. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics.

14.

Foshee

V. A.

Bauman

K. E.

Arriaga

X. B.

Helms

R. W.

Koch

G. G.

Linder

G. F.

(1998). An evaluation of Safe Dates, an adolescent dating violence prevention program. American journal of public health, 88(1), 45-50.

15.

Gilbert

Widom

C. S.

Browne

Fergusson

Webb

Janson

(2009). Burden and consequences of child maltreatment in high-income countries. The Lancet, 373, 68-81. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61706-7

16.

Hamby

Finkelhor

Turner

(2012). Teen dating violence: Co-occurrence with other victimizations in the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV). Psychology of Violence, 2, 111-124. doi:10.1037/a0027191

17.

Hamby

Grych

(2013). The web of violence: Exploring connections among different forms of interpersonal violence and abuse. New York, NY: Springer.

18.

Jordan

C. E.

Combs

J. L.

Smith

G. T.

(2014). An exploration of sexual victimization and academic performance among college women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 153, 191-200. doi:10.1177/1524838014520637

19.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Ruggiero

Acierno

Saunders

Resnick

Best

(2003). Violence and risk of PTSD, major depression, substance abuse/dependence, and comorbidity: Results from the National Survey of Adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 692-700. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.692

20.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

C. H.

Warner

T. D.

Fisher

B. S.

Martin

S. L.

(2007). The campus sexual assault (CSA) study. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

21.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

C. H.

Warner

T. D.

Fisher

B. S.

Martin

S. L.

(2009). College women’s experiences with physically forced, alcohol- or other drug-enabled, and drug-facilitated sexual assault before and since entering college. Journal of American College Health, 57, 369-647. doi:10.3200/JACH.57.6.639-649

22.

LeBlanc

M. M.

Barling

Turner

(2014). Intimate partner aggression and women’s work outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 399-412.

23.

Lipson

(2001). Hostile hallways: Bullying, teasing, and sexual harassment in school. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation.

24.

Nabors

E. L.

(2010). Drug use and intimate partner violence among college students: An in-depth exploration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1043-1063. doi:10.1177/0886260509340543

25.

Novotney

(2014, September). Students under pressure. Monitor on Psychology, 45. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/09/cover-pressure.aspx

26.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NCJ 183781). Washington, DC: Department of Justice.

27.

Tjaden

P. G.

Thoennes

(1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the national violence against women survey (pp. 1-20). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

28.

Ullman

S. E.

Nadjowski

C. J.

(2009). Correlates of serious suicidal ideation and attempts in female adult sexual assault survivors. Suicide and Life-threatening Behavior, 39, 47-57. doi:10.1521/suli.2009.39.1.47

29.

Ullman

S. E.

Nadjowski

C. J.

Filipas

H. H.

(2009). Child sexual abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, and substance use: Predictors of revictimization in adult sexual assault survivors. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse: Research, Treatment, & Program Innovations for Victims, Survivors, & Offenders, 18, 367-385. doi:10.1080/10538710903035263

30.

Ward

S. K.

Chapman

Cohn

White

Williams

(1991). Acquaintance rape and the college social scene. Family Relations, 40(1), 65-71. doi: 10.2307/585660